A federal judge recently ruled against President Trump’s attempt to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for federal voter registration. This decision comes after multiple lawsuits led by Democratic and civil rights groups challenged the Trump administration’s executive order aimed at changing U.S. elections.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly stated that the proof-of-citizenship requirement breaches constitutional boundaries. She explained that the Constitution doesn’t grant the President authority over election regulations, which are meant to be managed by states and Congress. As she noted, “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President” regarding voting qualifications.
The judge’s ruling prevents the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from enforcing this requirement. Sophia Lin Lakin from the ACLU celebrated this outcome, calling it “a clear victory for our democracy,” highlighting concerns that such requirements could be seen as an overreach of presidential power.
Despite being a priority for many Republicans, efforts to introduce proof-of-citizenship laws have faced significant challenges. A similar mandate passed in the House last spring but stalled in the Senate. On a state level, these requirements often lead to confusion among voters, particularly affecting those who have changed their names due to marriage. For example, New Hampshire experienced complications earlier this year during its local elections when a proof-of-citizenship rule went into effect.
In Kansas, a previously enacted proof-of-citizenship law caused a significant backlash, resulting in about 30,000 eligible voters unable to register before it was overturned in court. Additionally, research shows that voting by noncitizens is extremely rare, which raises questions about the necessity of such laws.
The lawsuits against Trump’s executive order are far from over. There are ongoing challenges that could affect how ballots are handled, particularly around deadlines for mail-in voting. In April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general filed another suit against the executive order, joined later by Washington and Oregon due to their reliance on mail-in ballots.
As this situation evolves, it demonstrates the contentious nature of voting regulations in the U.S. and raises important questions about access and fairness in the electoral process.
Source link
Donald Trump, Elections, Sophia Lin Lakin, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, United States government, Voting, District of Columbia, General news, Domestic News, United States, Voting rights, Politics, Oregon, Washington news, Human rights, Civil rights, New Hampshire, Lawsuits, Executive orders, Courts
