A federal judge has dealt another significant blow to the election agenda of former President Donald Trump. On Friday, U.S. District Judge John Chun ruled against key provisions of Trump’s executive order that sought to reshape federal election rules. This ruling marks the third time a federal court has blocked aspects of Trump’s attempt to impose stricter voting regulations, reinforcing the view that the authority over elections lies primarily with the states and Congress, not the president.
In his ruling, Judge Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington, declaring that Trump’s order requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration goes beyond his constitutional authority. This executive order, issued in March 2023, aimed to mandate identification for voters, restrict the use of certain voting machines, and prevent the counting of absentee ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but arrived afterwards.
The implications of this ruling are significant. Chun emphasized that his decision was intended to “restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress,” a principle rooted in the framers’ intent as outlined in the Constitution. He highlighted the long-standing recognition of potential dangers in granting unilateral election powers to the president.
Judge Chun’s decision specifically barred the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from revising federal voter registration forms to require proof of citizenship. Additionally, he struck down provisions of the executive order that would have tied federal election funding to compliance with these citizenship requirements and the prohibition on counting late-arriving ballots.
The ruling primarily affects Oregon and Washington, which utilize mail-in voting extensively. Nonetheless, it underscores a broader trend in which courts have increasingly scrutinized Trump’s executive actions regarding voting. Legal experts have noted that the administration’s chances of successfully appealing these decisions appear slim.
The Trump administration has indicated that it may pursue an appeal, although prior attempts to challenge similar rulings have also faltered. Derek Clinger, a senior attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative, remarked, “The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things.”
While Trump’s efforts to influence election laws at the federal level have faced obstacles, his administration has sought to encourage state lawmakers to adopt his proposed policies. Some states, including Ohio, have already enacted measures to eliminate grace periods for mail-in ballots, reflecting a partial alignment with Trump’s agenda.
Despite these changes at the state level, many election law experts suggest that Trump’s broader election strategy has lacked effectiveness. David Becker, an election lawyer and director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, stated that the more courts evaluate Trump’s executive order, the clearer it becomes that he has overstepped his constitutional authority.
The ruling also has implications beyond the immediate election order. It highlights the limited avenues available for altering election policy: either through congressional action or through state legislative changes. Becker pointed out that, outside of some Republican-led initiatives, Trump’s push for changes in voting practices has largely stagnated.
While the executive order has faced judicial challenges, it has prompted some activity within federal agencies. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed numerous lawsuits against states that have resisted providing voter data, leveraging the executive order as a basis for its actions.
Experts have raised concerns that Trump’s election agenda is primarily a projection of power rather than a concrete plan to effect change. Justin Levitt, an election law professor, likened it to a flawed strategy that lacks a clear path forward, suggesting that the public may not be swayed by rhetoric if there are no substantive changes to back it.
As the political landscape continues to evolve, the outcomes of this case and its potential appeal will likely play a critical role in shaping the future of U.S. election policy.
