Trump Sued Over Executive Order on Voting Laws \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Two election watchdog groups have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order mandating proof-of-citizenship and other sweeping voting restrictions. The legal complaint argues the order is unconstitutional and exceeds presidential authority. Voting rights advocates warn the changes could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
Trump Election Order Lawsuit – Quick Looks
- Lawsuit filed by Campaign Legal Center, State Democracy Defenders Fund
- Targets Trump’s executive order mandating proof-of-citizenship for voting
- Plaintiffs include LULAC, Secure Families Initiative, Arizona Students’ Association
- Suit claims the order is unconstitutional and exceeds executive power
- White House has not issued a response
- Order may violate Elections Clause giving states authority over elections
- Trump argues the order combats noncitizen voting fraud
- Legal experts say such fraud is extremely rare
- Critics warn the order would disenfranchise eligible voters
- Republican election officials in some states praise the order
- Lawsuit may be first of many legal challenges
Deep Look
A sweeping new executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at overhauling federal election systems is already facing fierce legal pushback. On Monday, two prominent nonpartisan election watchdog groups — the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund — filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., seeking to block the order from taking effect.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the suit names three nonprofit plaintiffs — the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Secure Families Initiative, and the Arizona Students’ Association — as directly harmed by the executive action. The order mandates proof-of-citizenship for voter registration, imposes new restrictions on mail ballots, and could have wide-reaching implications for election access and administration nationwide.
“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree.”
Constitutional Battle Over Election Authority
At the core of the lawsuit is the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which delegates the authority over the “times, places and manner” of elections to state legislatures — and gives Congress, not the president, the power to “make or alter” such rules in federal elections.
Nowhere in the Constitution, the plaintiffs argue, is the executive branch granted the power to unilaterally impose nationwide election mandates.
“The Constitution is clear,” Lang stated. “States set their own rules of the road when it comes to elections, and only Congress can override them for federal contests. This order is an unconstitutional executive overreach.”
The order also relies on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent federal agency — to help implement its changes. Critics say Trump has no authority over the EAC, which traditionally maintains a nonpartisan role in helping states improve election systems without imposing mandates.
Proof-of-Citizenship Debate Reignited
One of the most contentious parts of Trump’s executive order is a requirement for voters to provide documentation proving U.S. citizenship before registering to vote — a measure that critics say could block or deter millions of eligible Americans from participating.
While Trump defends the move as a bulwark against illegal voting, research and numerous investigations have repeatedly shown that noncitizen voting is extremely rare and already a federal felony.
Opponents argue that such a requirement could lead to widespread confusion and disenfranchisement, particularly for low-income and younger voters who may not have immediate access to documentation like passports or birth certificates.
A case in point: Kansas implemented a similar requirement between 2013 and 2016. During that time, over 30,000 eligible voters were prevented from registering, almost all of whom were U.S. citizens.
Legal Dominoes and Political Reactions
This lawsuit could be the first of several legal challenges against the executive order. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and election lawyer Marc Elias have indicated they’re preparing their own actions. Several Democratic attorneys general are also reviewing the legality of the measure and have expressed skepticism about its constitutionality.
Meanwhile, Republican election officials in states like Texas and Florida have praised the order, calling it a valuable tool to combat voter fraud and clean voter rolls. Some believe the measure would help states access more federal data to verify registrations.
But even among administrators, there are concerns that the executive order could create confusion and operational challenges. States may be forced to overhaul systems, retrain workers, and notify voters of new requirements — all while navigating reduced federal cybersecurity support under the current administration.
A Broader Agenda and Legal Pattern
This voting-related order is just one of many aggressive executive actions taken by Trump in his second term, several of which have already landed in court. Federal judges have either partially or fully blocked initiatives to curb birthright citizenship, ban transgender Americans from military service, and roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs tied to federal grants and contracts.
Legal experts say the pattern underscores the Trump administration’s top-down governing style, in which executive power is used to impose sweeping changes often at odds with Congress or existing law.
As for this latest order, the courts will now have to determine whether the president can unilaterally reshape U.S. election systems, or whether — as many constitutional scholars argue — those powers remain with the states and Congress.
“This is a defining moment for American democracy,” Lang added. “The outcome of this case could shape how future presidents — of either party — approach voting rights for generations.”
Trump Sued Over Trump Sued Over Trump Sued Over
You must Register or Login to post a comment.