A coalition of 19 Democratic state attorneys general has mounted a legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s recent executive order that imposes new voting requirements, including proof of citizenship for voter registration and restrictions on counting late-arriving mail-in ballots in federal elections.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston on April 3, contends that Trump’s March 25 executive order “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” overreaches presidential authority and infringes upon states’ constitutional rights to manage their own election procedures.
New York Attorney General Letitia James criticized the order as an unconstitutional attempt to control elections and intimidate voters. The order’s two main provisions require documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship during federal election voter registration and prohibit states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day for presidential and congressional races.
This new regulation would significantly impact the participating states, which previously allowed the counting of mail-in ballots that were postmarked before Election Day and arrived within state-specified timeframes. Trump’s order points to European examples, specifically Denmark and Sweden, where late-arriving mail-in ballots are not accepted regardless of postmark date, suggesting the United States should adopt similar practices.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading the legal challenge alongside Nevada, argued that the president lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally modify state election procedures, asserting that such power resides with Congress.
The lawsuit joins existing legal challenges from the Democratic National Committee and Democratic congressional leadership, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
The state attorneys general’s lawsuit argues that the order violates both constitutional principles and the National Voting Rights Act, which currently allows individuals to vote upon attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury. While Democratic officials maintain that non-citizen voting is already illegal, Republican supporters of the order have expressed concerns about potential false attestations during voter registration due to insufficient
verification procedures.
The legal challenge also addresses the order’s enforcement mechanisms, which include threats of federal funding withdrawal and potential Justice Department investigations to ensure compliance. The attorneys general argue these measures constitute improper federal coercion of state election authorities.
Trump’s executive order justified the new requirements by claiming states have failed to properly verify voter citizenship and that the Department of Justice has not adequately enforced existing provisions under the current administration. The order specifically alleged that the Biden administration has allowed unauthorized immigrants to appear on state voter rolls.
When implementing the order, Trump stated these measures were necessary to “straighten out our elections.” The controversy highlights ongoing partisan divisions over election security measures and voting access, with Democrats arguing the requirements create unnecessary barriers to voting while Republicans maintain they are essential for election integrity.
The lawsuit represents a significant challenge to federal authority over state election procedures and sets up a legal battle over the balance of power between federal and state governments in
administering elections. As the case proceeds through the judicial system, it could have major implications for how future elections are conducted and how voter eligibility is verified across the country.