Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Election Reform Order/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A Massachusetts federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order on federal election reforms. The order required voter citizenship proof and restricted mail-in ballot deadlines. The judge ruled the directive exceeded presidential power and burdened states.
Trump’s Election Order Halted: Quick Looks
- Blocked in court: Federal judge rules Trump exceeded authority on election rules.
- Key changes challenged: Order demanded voter citizenship proof and new ballot deadlines.
- State pushback: Attorneys general argued the directive undermined states’ electoral authority.
- No presidential powers: Judge emphasizes Constitution gives no election control to the president.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Election Reform Order
Deep Look
A federal judge in Massachusetts has struck down President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order that aimed to implement sweeping changes to the administration of federal elections. The ruling, delivered Friday by U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper, represents a major legal setback for Trump’s efforts to influence how states run federal elections.
The executive order, issued March 25, mandated that states require documentary proof of citizenship for all voter registrations, reject any mailed ballots not received by Election Day, and tie eligibility for federal election funding to compliance with the new rules. Trump’s administration justified the move as a safeguard for “free, fair and honest elections,” calling proof of citizenship a “commonsense” safeguard.
However, the order quickly drew legal challenges. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general from multiple states filed suit, arguing the directive intruded on constitutionally protected state powers.
“This action usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat,” they stated in court filings.
Judge Casper agreed. In her ruling, she found that the plaintiffs—Democratic-led states—had a strong likelihood of success on the merits. She emphasized that the Constitution does not grant the president any direct authority over elections, noting that power is primarily reserved for Congress and individual states.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote. She added that existing federal registration forms already require attestation of citizenship and acknowledged that citizenship is a universal requirement for federal voters.
She also recognized the states’ argument that implementing Trump’s order would require extensive updates to registration systems and voting procedures, resulting in “significant efforts and substantial costs.”
The White House, meanwhile, defended the executive order as a necessary response to concerns about election integrity, claiming the changes would bolster voter confidence and ensure uniform national standards.
But critics argue the order bypassed Congress, burdened states with unfunded mandates, and targeted mail-in voting—a method heavily used in Democratic-leaning states. Trump has long pushed against expanded mail-in voting, frequently claiming without evidence that it leads to widespread fraud.
With the ruling, the executive order cannot take effect, and any enforcement of its provisions is immediately halted unless overturned on appeal. This decision adds another legal roadblock to Trump’s broader push to reshape federal election laws ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.