The Trump administration moved Monday to consolidate state control over the electoral process, asking the Supreme Court to implement an executive order that would dramatically limit mail-in voting access before November’s midterm elections. The Justice Department petitioned the justices to halt lower court decisions blocking these sweeping changes across nearly half the country.
President Donald Trump issued the executive order in March of the same year. It mandates the creation of a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. The order then directs that mail ballots be delivered exclusively to individuals on this list. Furthermore, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration are instructed to provide federal citizenship lists to state officials for voter eligibility determination. The U.S. Postal Service is told to deliver mail ballots only to those on the lists. Ballots must also feature secure envelopes equipped with unique barcodes for tracking purposes. States and localities failing to comply with these directives face the potential withholding of federal funding.
Mechanisms of Electoral Control
Democratic officials from 23 states and the District of Columbia immediately challenged the order. They argued that the Constitution grants states and Congress, not the president, the authority to establish election rules. Attorneys for these states warned that Trump’s proposed changes were ripe for abuse and could lead to widespread chaos. A judge in Massachusetts subsequently blocked the executive order for the plaintiff states. Over the weekend, a divided 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld her ruling. The administration’s appeal claims Trump’s order provides “general policy guidance” and does not directly dictate state election operations.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the high court to freeze the judge’s order while lawsuits proceed. He called the injunction indefensible. Sauer stated that the agencies are still deliberating on how, or if, to implement the order, yet the district court preemptively decided any agency action would be unlawful. He pressed for swift action, asserting that new policies must be in place by August of the same year to be effective for the November elections. A response to the appeal is due August 3.
The Pretext of 'Safeguards'
Trump has consistently promoted his executive order as a necessary safeguard against non-U.S. citizens voting. He has also repeatedly advocated for legislation requiring proof of citizenship to vote. However, noncitizen voting has been demonstrably rare. It remains a felony, punishable by deportation.
Legal Battles and Systemic Limits
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed in June of the same year to halt implementation for the November 3 elections. Her decision contrasted with that of U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington. Judge Nichols found in May of the same year that it was too early to block the order, as it had not yet been implemented. The Supreme Court has previously ruled against the Trump administration on mail-in ballots, finding in June of the same year that states can count ballots arriving after Election Day. The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading the lawsuit for the states, offered no immediate comment on the Trump administration’s appeal. New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office also declined to comment. The Postal Service would not discuss its plans regarding Trump’s order or its rule, citing ongoing litigation. In Kansas, Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s office confirmed it has not yet received communication from the Postal Service regarding future plans.