Executive Order on Proof of Citizenship for Voting Sparks Legal Battles
Trump's Executive Order on Proof of Citizenship for Voting Sparks Legal
Battles
President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections, a move that has triggered immediate legal challenges while revealing a complex landscape of public opinion on voter identification requirements.
The Executive Order's Provisions
The order, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," directs the Election Assistance Commission to update the federal voter registration form to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or certain driver's licenses, for those registering to vote in federal elections . The order also aims to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked by that date, and threatens to withhold federal funding from states that don't comply with these directives.
Currently, federal law requires that voters swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens and eligible to vote when they register, without mandating documentary proof. Voting as a noncitizen is already a serious crime that can result in felony charges and deportation.
Legal Challenges
The Democratic National Committee, the Campaign Legal Center, and the State Democracy Defenders Fund filed lawsuits Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to block Trump's order and have it declared illegal.
Legal experts question the president's authority to make such changes, noting that the U.S. Constitution designates the power to regulate the "time, place and manner" of elections to the states, with Congress having the ability to override those laws. The Constitution doesn't mention presidential authority over election administration.
Critics argue the order is "illegal at many different levels," according to Sean Morales-Doyle, voting rights director at the Brennan Center for Justice, who noted that the president cannot direct the independent, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission to make such changes.
Impact on Voters
The requirement could have significant implications for millions of Americans. According to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, an estimated 9% of U.S. citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, do not have proof of citizenship readily available.
Roughly half of Americans had U.S. passports last year, according to the State Department. The order allows voters to use passports or certain driver's licenses to prove citizenship, but notably does not list birth certificates as acceptable proof.
There are also concerns that married women who have changed their names will encounter trouble when trying to register because their birth certificates list their maiden names, an issue that has already emerged in town elections in New Hampshire, which has a new state law requiring proof of citizenship.
Support and Opposition
The executive order has drawn sharp partisan reactions. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, praised the order as "a great first step for election integrity reform nationwide." Meanwhile, Colorado's Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold called it an "unlawful" weaponization of the federal government designed to "make it harder for voters to fight back at the ballot box".
Public Opinion
Despite the political divide among elected officials, polling data suggests broader public support for voter verification measures. A recent Gallup poll from October 2024 found that 83% of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time. The same poll showed 84% support requiring photo identification to vote.
When broken down by demographics, 80% of people of color support voter ID requirements, and 76% support proof of citizenship requirements, according to Gallup.
However, partisan differences exist, with Republicans nearly unanimously backing both requirements while Democrats show lower, though still majority, support. According to Gallup, 68% of Democrats favor proof of citizenship requirements compared to 97% of Republicans.
What's Next
Trump referenced election fraud as he signed the order, saying "this will end it, hopefully" and indicated that more election actions would be taken in the coming weeks.
The executive order faces an uncertain future as legal challenges mount. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would codify a proof-of-citizenship requirement into law. The Republican-backed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, aims to accomplish similar goals but through the legislative process.
Legal experts suggest this conflict will ultimately be decided by the courts, possibly reaching the Supreme Court, as it tests the balance of power between the presidency, Congress, and states in administering federal elections.
Sources Cited
1. "Trump action would require proof of citizenship for voter registration." NPR, March 26, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order
2. "Trump signs election order calling for proof of U.S. citizenship to vote." Reuters, March 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-signs-election-order-calling-proof-us-citizenship-vote-2025-03-26/
3. "Trump signs executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections." NBC News, March 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-signs-executive-order-requiring-proof-citizenship-register-vote-rcna198094
4. "Trump signs executive order requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections." The Washington Post, March 25, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/25/trump-elections-citizenship-proof/
5. "Trump signs action requiring proof of citizenship for voters, other measures overhauling U.S. elections." PBS News, March 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-signs-action-requiring-proof-of-citizenship-for-voters-other-measures-overhauling-u-s-elections
6. "Trump signs order seeking to overhaul US elections, including requiring proof of citizenship." AP News, March 2025. https://apnews.com/article/voting-elections-trump-executive-order-4e9edb53f47e61e241a43ceef8164022
7. "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections." The White House, March 25, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/
8. "The Vast Majority of Americans Favor Photo ID Requirements, Proof of Citizenship for Voting: Gallup." The Maine Wire, October 25, 2024. https://www.themainewire.com/2024/10/the-vast-majority-of-americans-favor-photo-id-requirements-proof-of-citizenship-for-voting-gallup/
9. "Americans Endorse Both Early Voting and Voter Verification." Gallup, October 24, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx
Evaluation of ALI SWENSON's AP Story
Looking at the original AP story by Ali Swenson, I can offer the following assessment of its balance and fairness:
Strengths in Balance
-
Inclusion of multiple perspectives: The story includes quotes and positions from both opponents of the executive order (Democratic officials, voting rights advocates) and supporters (Republican state election officials), giving voice to different viewpoints.
-
Factual presentation: The article outlines the key components of the executive order without overly editorializing about their merits.
-
Context provision: The story provides relevant historical and legal context, noting that similar efforts had been attempted at the state level and mentioning previous court decisions on similar measures.
-
Potential impacts discussion: The article discusses the potential practical impacts on voters and election administrators, including cost considerations and the potential for voter disenfranchisement.
Areas of Potential Imbalance
-
Framing: The article opens with the legal challenges to the order, potentially framing the executive order as problematic from the outset rather than starting with a neutral description of the order itself.
-
Source selection: The story includes more quotes and perspectives from critics of the order than from supporters, which could create an impression of imbalance.
-
Language choices: Some phrases like "Trump, one of the top spreaders of election falsehoods" use characterizations that could be seen as editorializing rather than purely reporting.
-
Contextual evidence: While the article mentions that noncitizen voting is "exceedingly rare," it doesn't include specific polling data showing substantial public support for voter ID and citizenship verification requirements, which would provide additional relevant context.
Comparison to the Expanded Coverage Above
Our expanded news story included additional elements that provided greater balance:
- More detailed explanation of the executive order's specific provisions
- Inclusion of public opinion poll data showing broad support for voter ID and citizenship verification
- Demographic breakdowns of this support showing majority backing across racial groups
- More context about existing voter registration procedures
Conclusion
The original AP story provided a reasonably balanced account of the executive order and the immediate legal challenges it faced, but it could have been strengthened with more equal representation of supporting viewpoints and inclusion of relevant public opinion data showing widespread support for voter verification measures across demographic groups. The structure of leading with legal challenges rather than a neutral description of the order itself may have created an impression of editorial positioning against the measure.
Nonprofit groups sue Trump administration over election executive order, calling it unconstitutional
By ALI SWENSON, Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to overhaul the nation’s elections faced its first legal challenges Monday as the Democratic National Committee and a pair of nonprofits filed two separate lawsuits calling it unconstitutional.
The Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund brought the first lawsuit Monday afternoon. The DNC, the Democratic Governors Association, and Senate and House Democratic leaders followed soon after with a complaint of their own.
Both lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ask the court to block Trump’s order and declare it illegal.
“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center. “It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way.”
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The legal challenges had been expected after election lawyers warned some of Trump’s demands in the order, including a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and new ballot deadline rules, may violate the U.S. Constitution.
The order also asserts power that legal experts say the president doesn’t have over an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter registration form.
The suits come as Congress is considering codifying a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration into law, and as Trump has promised more actions related to elections in the coming weeks.
Both the legal challenges draw attention to the Constitution’s “ Elections Clause,” which says states — not the president — get to decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run. That section of the Constitution also gives Congress the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but it doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.
“The Constitution is clear: States set their own rules of the road when it comes to elections, and only Congress has the power to override these laws with respect to federal elections,” said Lang, calling the executive order an “unconstitutional executive overreach.”
The lawsuits also argue the president’s order could disenfranchise voters. The nonprofits’ lawsuit names three voter advocacy organizations as plaintiffs that they allege are harmed by Trump’s executive order: the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative and the Arizona Students’ Association.
The DNC’s lawsuit highlights the role of the government’s controversial cost-cutting arm, the Department of Government Efficiency.
It alleges the order’s data-sharing requirements, including instructing DOGE to cross-reference federal data with state voter lists, violate Democrats’ privacy rights and increase the risk that they will be harassed “based on false suspicions that they are not qualified to vote.”
“This executive order is an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections,” reads a statement from the plaintiffs.
Trump, one of the top spreaders of election falsehoods, has argued this executive order will secure the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens. Multiple studies and investigations in individual states have shown that noncitizens casting ballots in federal elections, already a felony, is exceedingly rare.
Monday’s lawsuits against Trump’s elections order could be followed by more challenges. Other voting rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have said they’re considering legal action. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal.
Meanwhile, Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.
If courts determine the order can stand, the changes Trump wants are likely to cause some headaches for both election administrators and voters. State election officials, who already have lost some federal cybersecurity assistance, would have to spend time and money to comply with the order, including potentially buying new voting systems and educating voters of the rules.
The proof-of-citizenship requirement also could cause confusion or voter disenfranchisement because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. In Kansas, which had a proof-of-citizenship requirement for three years before it was overturned, the state’s own expert estimated that almost all the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote during the time it was in effect were U.S. citizens who had been eligible.
Monday’s lawsuits are the latest of numerous efforts to fight the flurry of executive actions Trump has taken during the first months of his second term. Federal judges have partially or fully blocked many of them, including efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, ban transgender people from military service and curb diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives among federal contractors and grant recipients.
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about the AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Originally Published:
Comments
Post a Comment