Judge Blocks Trump’s Proof-of-Citizenship for Voter Form/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge ruled President Trump cannot require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. The court found the order unconstitutional, citing the separation of powers and lack of presidential authority over election laws. Civil rights groups and Democrats hailed the decision as a win for voting rights, while the White House vowed to appeal.
Trump Voter Citizenship Rule Blocked Quick Looks
- Judge rules Trump lacks authority to change federal voting rules
- Executive order requiring citizenship documents deemed unconstitutional
- Civil rights groups and Democrats filed lawsuits against the mandate
- U.S. Election Assistance Commission permanently barred from enforcing rule
- White House plans appeal, calling it “commonsense” election protection
- Citizenship mandates have historically caused voter confusion and errors
- Past state-level rules blocked tens of thousands from registering
- Noncitizen voting remains extremely rare, research shows
Deep Look
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Citizenship Requirement for Voter Registration
President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose a new citizenship documentation rule on the federal voter registration process has been struck down by a federal court, marking a significant defeat for his administration’s election agenda.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the ruling Friday in Washington, D.C., siding with a coalition of Democratic leaders and civil rights organizations that challenged the legality of Trump’s executive order. The court concluded that requiring documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form is unconstitutional and exceeds the powers granted to the presidency.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her decision. She emphasized that the President has “no direct role” in setting voter qualifications or federal election procedures, both of which are reserved for the legislative branch and the states.
This ruling grants a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and prevents the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from ever implementing the proof-of-citizenship requirement. The decision solidifies earlier remarks the judge made when she issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, praised the court’s decision. “This is a clear victory for our democracy,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab.”
The ruling is a blow to Trump’s push for election law reforms aimed at tightening ballot access under the banner of protecting election integrity. While the administration has argued the measure is essential to ensuring only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections, the court rejected the rationale as outside presidential authority.
The White House responded with strong opposition, promising to appeal. “President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to ensure only American citizens are casting ballots in American elections,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “This is so commonsense that only the Democrat Party would file a lawsuit against it. We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
Efforts to implement proof-of-citizenship voting requirements have encountered persistent legal and logistical challenges nationwide. Although the U.S. House passed a similar mandate earlier this year, the measure has stalled in the Senate. State-level attempts have fared no better.
In Kansas, a proof-of-citizenship rule was in place for three years but was overturned in federal court after disenfranchising approximately 30,000 eligible voters. Women who changed their names after marriage faced particular hurdles, often needing to supply multiple forms of documentation such as marriage certificates, birth certificates, and identification cards. Similar problems were reported earlier this year in New Hampshire when a local proof-of-citizenship rule disrupted municipal elections.
Despite concerns raised by Trump and others, studies consistently show that instances of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections are exceedingly rare.
The ruling does not end legal scrutiny of Trump’s executive order on elections. Other parts of the directive remain under legal challenge, including a mandate that all mailed ballots must be received—not just postmarked—by Election Day. Plaintiffs argue that this would disenfranchise voters in states that primarily use vote-by-mail systems.
Additional lawsuits against the executive order are active. In April, 19 Democratic attorneys general jointly filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify the mandate. States like Washington and Oregon, which rely almost entirely on mail-in voting, have joined the legal fight, warning the order could undermine established electoral practices.
As the legal battles continue, the federal court’s decision serves as a reminder of the constitutional boundaries that limit presidential authority over how Americans cast their ballots.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.