Five Democratic-led states have enacted legislation aimed at limiting federal government access to election records and voter rolls, raising constitutional questions about the balance between state authority and federal election oversight. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and Washington state have passed laws that could set up legal clashes with the Trump administration as it pursues investigations into potential voter fraud and election irregularities.
The US Constitution gives states the primary task of running elections and Congress the power to set the ground rules for federal contests. These new state laws, however, create barriers to federal scrutiny at a time when President Donald Trump has signed executive orders aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting and his Department of Justice is fighting in court to gain access to multiple states' voter rolls as it searches for proof of ineligible individuals, including noncitizens, casting ballots.
Federal Authority and State Resistance
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Trump "is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters." She added, "This campaign pledge from the President is why millions of Americans sent him back to the White House."
Since returning to the White House last year, the president has repeatedly tried to change election procedures as his attempts to muscle through new voting restrictions have faltered in Congress. His administration has taken records related to the 2020 election he lost from the largest counties in Georgia and Arizona. Asked last month whether he would send Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers or National Guard troops to the polls, Trump responded he would do "anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections."
Maryland state Sen. Cynthia Kagan, a Democrat who co-sponsored a new law aimed at maintaining the state's deadline for counting mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day, said, "It's infuriating that the Trump administration believes they can ignore the Constitution of the United States and try to take over our elections."
The New State Restrictions
In California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed legislation that prohibits election officials from providing unauthorized access to voter rolls or voting machines without a court order. It also makes it a crime to knowingly take voted ballots from election officials without a valid warrant. During the signing ceremony, Newsom described California's law as needed "to address the legitimate anxiety" about the administration's moves.
Newsom also referred to the high-profile seizure of 650,000 ballots cast in last year's special election from Riverside County, California, by the county's sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican who was running for governor. A local judge had signed a warrant for what Bianco called a "fact-finding mission" into potential election fraud. Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court halted the probe and ordered the seized ballots preserved.
In Colorado, a law signed earlier this month by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis prohibits interfering with voting within a newly established 100-foot buffer zone around ballot drop boxes and polling locations. It also gives the governor, with input from an advisory committee, the power to declare an emergency to allow elections to proceed in the event of any disruption.
In Connecticut, a new provision of state law that goes into effect July 1 seeks to largely bar law enforcement from being within 250 feet of a polling location, ballot dropbox or vote-counting site without the permission of election officials, according to state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs his chamber's government administration and election committee and is a lead sponsor of the new law. Connecticut's new law also requires municipal officials or election workers who receive a subpoena or warrant to notify the attorney general and secretary of state within 36 hours.
Blumenthal pointed to the FBI's January 28 seizure of 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia. An affidavit unsealed after a legal challenge from local officials showed that claims from 2020 election deniers were used to justify the FBI's warrant. Blumenthal said the Connecticut law would not necessarily prevent federal agents from obtaining election material in circumstances similar to those in Fulton County, Georgia, but it tries to give state officials the opportunity to intervene in court before ballots or machines are seized under a warrant.
In Washington state, a law enacted in March makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to disclose personal information contained in the voter registration file to people other than state and local election officials without the permission of the secretary of state. The measure's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Marcus Riccelli, said it doesn't bar a government entity from requesting the information and potentially obtaining it, but the request "has to go through our secretary of state who manages our statewide voter registration database."
Constitutional Questions and Republican Objections
Some Republican lawmakers argued that Democrats are trying to interfere with legitimate scrutiny of elections by the federal government. California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican who opposes the new law in his state, said he expects a legal challenge to it on grounds that it could violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prohibits states from regulating the federal government. He said, "I think that we should have the ability at all levels of government to be able to monitor elections to make sure elections are done properly." He added, "What do you have to hide?"
Richard Pildes, the co-director of the Democracy Project at New York University's Law School, said new laws in places such as Washington state that create criminal penalties for local officials who share sensitive data may survive challenges on constitutional grounds because they do not attempt to police federal actions. He said, "They are designed to tell their election officials not to voluntarily give the information over if it's requested." He added, "They're regulating their own election officials. They're not telling federal officials how to conduct their responsibilities."
Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who served as a White House adviser on voting during the Biden administration, said states have had legal skirmishes with the federal government over election rules in the recent past but most centered on changes enacted by Congress. He said, "What is different now is that the president is trying to act outside federal law and his powers." Levitt said he believes this fall's elections will not face serious disruption. He added, "States themselves are in charge of the process. And when the president orders stuff to get done, the states just don't have to listen."
The Trump administration is backing a push by the Republican National Committee before the US Supreme Court that seeks to stop the counting of ballots in federal elections that arrive after Election Day. A decision from the high court is expected soon. Maryland is one of 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, which counts mail ballots received after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Maryland has a 10-day grace period as long as ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day.
When asked about Trump's remarks on deploying federal officers to the polls, the White House pointed to press secretary Karoline Leavitt telling reporters that she had not heard the president "discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations."
Why This Matters:
The tension between federal oversight authority and state election administration raises fundamental questions about constitutional governance and the integrity of America's electoral system. If states can effectively block federal investigations into voter fraud and election irregularities through criminal penalties and procedural barriers, the federal government's ability to ensure accurate voter rolls and prevent illegal voting may be compromised. The Supreme Court's pending decision on post-Election Day ballot counting could clarify the constitutional boundaries, but the proliferation of state laws creating obstacles to federal scrutiny suggests a coordinated effort to limit accountability measures. With November's midterm elections approaching, the conflict between state laws designed to shield election processes from federal review and the administration's mandate to verify election integrity could affect public confidence in electoral outcomes. The constitutional questions surrounding the Supremacy Clause and federal investigative authority will likely require judicial resolution, potentially creating uncertainty about which level of government holds ultimate authority over election security measures.