Judge blocks Donald Trump’s executive order that tried to reshape voting laws, slash mail ballots, & limit state authority

A federal judge on Friday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that attempted to introduce new rules for federal elections.?The order, issued on March 25, was challenged in court by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who said it violated the U.S. Constitution by taking away states’ authority over elections.

Trump’s directive sought to require documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. It also aimed to restrict mailed ballots to those received by Election Day and make future federal election grant money conditional on states accepting the new rules.

States say order bypassed constitutional authority

Attorneys general from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit shortly after the order was signed, arguing that it infringed upon the states' rights to manage their own elections. They stated that the executive branch did not have the power to enforce such changes without Congressional approval.

A bipartisan group of former secretaries of state also filed a legal statement, warning that Trump’s order would interfere with the constitutional balance outlined in the Elections Clause. That clause gives both states and Congress control over election processes.

In their filing, they cautioned, “The snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially” if the court did not intervene.

US President Donald Trump | Credit: X

What Trump’s order proposed to change

The order was part of several executive actions taken early in Trump’s second term and faced immediate legal resistance. Trump's proposal included several significant changes:

• Mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections
• Rejecting any mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day
• Implementing new standards for voting equipment
• Barring non-citizens from contributing in certain election campaigns
• Tying federal election funding to state compliance with these rules??

The Trump administration defended the order, calling it a step toward “free, fair and honest elections.” The White House also described the citizenship requirement as “commonsense.”Background and reactions to Trump’s claimsTrump has long maintained that non-citizen voting and voter fraud contributed to his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, though evidence has not supported widespread illegal voting. In practice, non-citizen voting is rare and often results in felony charges or deportation when discovered.Critics argue that Trump’s latest order attempted to enforce controversial beliefs through unilateral action rather than legislation, leading to its legal rejection.

The ruling blocks one of Trump’s key executive efforts in his second term, setting up a deeper legal debate over federal authority in elections.??

For more news and current affairs?from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.