WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials from the Democratic Party in 19 states initiated a lawsuit on Thursday against President Donald Trump’s effort to alter election processes nationwide, deeming it an unlawful intrusion into the states’ definitive right to manage their own electoral systems.
This lawsuit marks the fourth challenge to the executive order that was issued just a week prior. The objective is to impede critical components of the order, which includes new stipulations requiring individuals to present documented proof of citizenship when registering to vote, along with a mandate that all mail-in ballots be counted only if received by Election Day.
“The President lacks the authority to undertake any of this,” the attorneys general stated in their court filings. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and goes against American values.”
Trump’s directive asserted that the U.S. has fallen short in “enforcing essential and fundamental election protections.” However, election officials have indicated that recent elections have been some of the most secure in U.S. history, with no evidence of widespread fraud occurring, including during Trump’s defeat to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
The executive order encapsulates Trump’s longstanding grievances regarding election administration in the U.S. Following his inaugural victory in 2016, Trump erroneously claimed that his total popular vote would have been significantly greater if not for the “millions of people who voted illegally.” In 2020, he attributed his loss to a “rigged” election, repeating false claims regarding widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting systems.
Trump has maintained that his order is intended to safeguard the electoral process against illegal voting by noncitizens, although various studies and investigations within the states demonstrate that such occurrences are extremely rare.
This order has garnered endorsements from leading election officials in certain Republican states, who believe it could reduce instances of voter fraud and provide them with access to federal information to improve voter roll management.
The directive also stipulates that states must reject any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, with noncompliance risking their federal funding. Some states permit counting ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day or allow voters to rectify minor issues with their ballots.
The lawsuit argues that compelling states to make changes contradicts the extensive authority granted to states by the Constitution concerning their own electoral regulations. It affirms that states determine the “times, places, and manner” of election administration.
While Congress possesses the ability to “make or alter” election regulations for federal offices, the Constitution does not specify any presidential authority over election administration.
“We function as a democracy—not a monarchy—and this executive order constitutes an authoritarian power grab,” asserted New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha remarked that the Trump administration is compelling states to either obey an unconstitutional mandate or forfeit federally approved funding, a move he argued is beyond the president’s authority.
“In one swift action, this president is attempting to undermine our electoral process while circumventing Congress, and we refuse to accept it,” he added.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticized Trump’s executive order as an attempt to enforce “broad voting restrictions” nationwide, potentially disenfranchising voters.
The attorney general and secretary of state of Nevada, a pivotal state in presidential elections, defended their electoral processes as fair, secure, and transparent, opposing the president’s effort to interfere in their administration. Attorney General Aaron Ford praised Nevada’s automated systems for voter registration and mail balloting.
“This order is not only fundamentally unconstitutional and illegal, but it is also unnecessary,” he stated.
A request for comment directed to the White House has yet to be answered.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Other lawsuits related to this order contend that it could disenfranchise voters, as millions of eligible voters may not possess the necessary documentation on hand. Individuals are already required to affirm their citizenship under penalty of perjury when voting.
The order designates acceptable documents to confirm citizenship as a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license that “indicates the applicant is a citizen,” and a valid photo ID if presented alongside proof of citizenship.
Democrats assert that there are millions of Americans who do not have easy access to their birth certificates, with approximately half lacking a U.S. passport. Additionally, married women could face complications due to name changes requiring multiple documents. This was a significant issue for some women during recent local elections in New Hampshire, which were the first held under a new state law necessitating proof of citizenship for registration.
It should also be noted that not all REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses indicate U.S. citizenship.
___
Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Contributions to this report were made by Associated Press writers Tran Nguyen in Sacramento, California, Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire, and Rio Yamat in Las Vegas.
