The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, seeking to implement an executive order designed to ensure only U.S. citizens cast ballots in November's midterm elections. This direct challenge to the integrity of the national electorate faces fierce resistance from lower courts and Democratic officials. The Justice Department moved Monday to halt decisions blocking the sweeping changes across nearly half the country.
President Trump ordered the government in March to establish a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. This directive mandates that mail ballots be delivered exclusively to individuals on that list. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, alongside the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, are tasked with providing federal citizenship lists to state officials. These lists would then determine eligible voters. The order further instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots solely to those verified on these lists. Ballots themselves would feature secure envelopes, each with a unique barcode for tracking. States and localities failing to comply could face the withholding of federal funding.
Trump has consistently promoted these proposed changes as essential safeguards. His aim: to prevent non-U.S. citizens from voting. He has also repeatedly pressed for legislation requiring proof of citizenship to vote, a measure aimed at securing the national franchise.
Securing the Citizen Vote
Democratic officials from 23 states and the District of Columbia immediately launched lawsuits against the executive order. Their attorneys argue the Constitution grants states and Congress, not the president, the authority to set election rules. They claim Trump’s proposed changes are “ripe for abuse” and could “cause chaos.”
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed in June to halt the order's implementation for the November 3 elections. A divided 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel subsequently left her ruling in place over the weekend. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, called the injunction “indefensible.” Sauer argued that agencies are still deliberating how to implement the order, making the district court's preemptive decision necessarily unlawful. He urged the high court to act swiftly, noting that any new policies must be in place by August to be effective for the upcoming elections.
Elite Resistance
The Supreme Court has previously ruled against the Trump administration on mail-in ballots. In June, the court found that states can count ballots arriving after Election Day, a decision that further complicates efforts to streamline election security. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by Trump, offered a contrasting view in May, finding it was too early to block the order since it hadn't yet been implemented.
Noncitizen voting, while shown to be rare, remains a felony punishable by deportation. Yet, the administration's push underscores a fundamental concern over the integrity of the national electorate and the self-determination of sovereign peoples. The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads the lawsuit for the states, offered no immediate comment on the Trump administration’s appeal. New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office also declined to comment. The Postal Service, citing ongoing litigation, would not discuss its plans regarding the order. In Kansas, Secretary of State Scott Schwab’s office confirmed it hasn't heard from the Postal Service about future plans. This silence from key institutions highlights the deep institutional resistance to measures designed to protect the citizen's vote.