Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote
The judge wrote that Congress holds election power, not the Executive branch.
Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts blocked key provisions in President Donald Trump’s executive order, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, that would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote.
The attorney generals from the states of California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin challenged § 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 4(a), 7(a) and 7(b) of the order, claiming them as ultra vires (beyond the powers) and violations of the separation of powers.
Casper wrote that Congress holds election power, not the Executive branch:
While the Constitution vests the President with “executive Power” and commands him to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const. art. II, §§ 1, 3, it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections. As a result, the President “plays no direct role in the process” of appointing electors, “nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 627 (2024). As the Supreme Court has noted, “the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 526-27 (2008) (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587 (1952)).
Casper is correct. The power to make adjustments or laws regarding voting belongs to Congress.
The Executive Branch cannot force states to require citizenship when a person registers to vote.
Casper blocked the following sections:
2(a): documentary proof of United States citizenship, consistent with 52 U.S.C. 20508(b)(3).
Power rests with Congress to change the National Voter Registration Act.
3(d): The Secretary of Defense shall update the Federal Post Card Application, pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, 52 U.S.C. 20301, to require documentary proof of United States citizenship, as defined by section 2(a)(ii) of this order and proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.
It conflicts with the will of Congress, which has the power when it comes to voting laws.
4(a): The Election Assistance Commission shall, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 21003(b)(3)and 21142(c) and consistent with applicable law, take all appropriate action to cease providing Federal funds to States that do not comply with the Federal laws set forth in 52 U.S.C. 21145, including the requirement in 52 U.S.C. 20505(a)(1) that States accept and use the national mail voter registration form issued pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 20508(a)(1), including any requirement for documentary proof of United States citizenship adopted pursuant to section 2(a)(ii) of this order.
States established that proof of citizenship is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act and Help America Vote Act doesn’t allow the Election Assistance Commission to threaten any funding if they do or do not require proof of citizenship on the registration form.
7(a): The Attorney General shall take all necessary action to enforce 2 U.S.C. 7 and 3 U.S.C. 1 against States that violate these provisions by including absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in the final tabulation of votes for the appointment of Presidential electors and the election of members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
The statutes do not have any criminal offenses & intereferes with some state laws that allow votes to count that are marked by Election day but received afterward (known as Ballot Receipt States).
7(b): Consistent with 52 U.S.C. 21001(b) and other applicable law, the Election Assistance Commission shall condition any available funding to a State on that State’s compliance with the requirement in 52 U.S.C. 21081(a)(6) that each State adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards within that State that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote, including that, as prescribed in 2 U.S.C. 7 and 3 U.S.C. 1, there be a uniform and nondiscriminatory ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting, excluding ballots cast in accordance with 52 U.S.C. 20301 et seq., after which no additional votes may be cast.
(also for Ballot Receipt States) Statutes passed by Congress don’t connect funding to Election Day.
Unfortunately, Congress won’t do anything because the Republicans lack a spine and integrity.
But if we get mad when Democrats step outside of the Constitution, we have to react the same way when a Republican does it.
And just because Congress won’t act, especially Senate Majority Leader John Thune, doesn’t mean the president can.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I havent had time to review the statute of the motor vehicle voter registration act or opinion or the Scalia opinion in AZ / indian case in sufficient detail, so my comment is somewhat premature on a proper analysis.
that being said, based my brief scan of the opinion, it would appear that the only error by the trump administration if the failure to follow the APA procedures. The failure to follow the APA is what got a lot of EO struck during the first trump administration.
Congress lacks the capacity to act these days, which dysfunction the Constitution did not contemplate. What has to be done sort of moved to the Presidency in existential reaction.
Congress is a committee of 535 members. Who in their right mind would expect anything to get done?
I don’t believe the Founders ever anticipated 50 states, as far West as Hawaii and North as Alaska. Getting 13 together was marginal, as it was.
But if we get mad when Democrats step outside of the Constitution, we have to react the same way when a Republican does it.
Enjoy perpetually losing. The communists have zero problem trying to push these boundaries
I thought the “Supreme” Court said that activist district “judges”, like the DEI TDS Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, appointed by the moslem Kenyan communist, couldn’t declare national law.
It did, now let SCOTUS enforce its mandate,….see the problem?
No, it didn’t.
It held that federal courts can’t provide injunctive relief to nonparties to a case.
1. this is not an injunction.
2. all the states that objected to the order it are parties.
Meh. Trump Admin proposed requirement for Postal Service to only accept ballots for mailing that have been accompanied by registration validated as US Citizens will work. States can do more/less whatever they want within their purview but so can the Executive Branch within their purview.
Sooner or later we’re gonna get the SAVE Act passed. I suspect a compromise might be to pass it this term but with an effective date for Jan ’27 after the midterms. The Senate holdouts gotta know it is coming and they gonna have to get on the train or get run over. The childish tantrums of TDS riddled Senators is growing tiresome.
Every decision by the President gets blocked.
Getting frustrating, At least when a Marxist or Empty Suit becomes President this will end.
That will probably be the end of the country
“At least when a Marxist or Empty Suit becomes President this will end.”
Chaos is a form of coercion: “vote for us and the US can have peace in the streets.”
If you give in to that type of thinking, then the communists will win. It is the formula for communists to “persuade” chaos-weary citizens to give in.
As Ms Chastain wrote, this decision appears to be correct. The president has no authority under any statute to make this order to the states. Congress does.
The 15th Amendment is explicit in stating that citizens may not have their voting rights abridged or denied. It doesn’t state that non-citizens can’t have them denied. The amendment already exists. Now it just needs to be enforced.
The 15th only prohibits denying someone the franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. States remained free to deny it on any other grounds. And it has absolutely no connection to the topic here. It does not require states to deny the franchise to anyone.
Another Bolshevik judge. How many more are there?
Monkey and Autopen maximized their damage best they could.
As Ms Chastain pointed out, this decision appears to be correct. So while the judge may or may not be a bolshevik, this decision doesn’t show that.
Uh the judge is full of, oh what is the legal technical term?, ah yes, crap, I believe the word is crap. The President is not creating or writing law. The EO was issued pursuant to and enforces existing federal law. You know that thing the President is constitutionally charged to faithfully execute. The Judge is ignoring the law, the constitution for one, by according standing where no exists; and like so many other judicial hacks, is ignoring the president’s lawful power and discretion in favor of the judge’s preferred policy.
you are correct, and the judge knows that you are correct, and the judge also knows that Trump is such a weeny the he will foolishly comply
No, it doesn’t. There is no federal law requiring states to verify citizenship on voter registration. Congress can make such a law, at least as regard to congressional elections (not for presidential or state elections), but it hasn’t. The president can’t “enforce” a law that doesn’t exist.
Long past time to start ignoring these goddamn traitors. Citizenship is a requirement to vote, there’s no problem with asking for proof of it
No one disputes that citizenship is a requirement to vote in congressional elections. But there is no law requiring states to verify this on registration. Most states take a voter’s word for it, and Congress has made no law saying they can’t. The president has no authority to just make up such a requirement.
By the way, even Congress can’t do it for presidential elections, let alone state and local elections. But it can for congressional elections, and no state is going to maintain separate rolls for congressional and presidential elections, one with only verified citizens and one including people who claim to be citizens but for some reason refused to verify it and chose instead to vote only for president. So in practice if Congress makes a law for congressional elections it will also apply to presidential, and will almost certainly apply to state elections as well.
Obama judge.
Remember that #Resistances judges want strict adherence to what is in the law. But when the issue is abortion or ICE or the National Guard or deporting illegals or the Bill of Rights these same judges find all sorts of mysterious never-even-hinted-at emanations and penumbras and other ill-defined rescuing devices that miraculously allow whatever the Communist Party wants at that particular moment.
You cannot have a republic of unelected judges.
What would happen if I were to jet down to Colombia and attempt to vote?
Schmuck Schumer would reimburse your air fare, and kiss you, as long as you voted communist.
Since the constitution dictates that only citizens may vote, congress and states have the obligation to ensure only citizens may vote and that requires proof. Claiming you are eligible to vote isn’t the same thing as being eligible to vote.
No, it doesn’t.
Congress has no such obligation. States have no such obligation unless Congress makes a law saying they do.
A statement under oath, which every state does require, is “proof”, though extremely weak. We know there are many who lie, we just don’t know how many. Congress should definitely make a law requiring better proof. But it doesn’t have to, and so far it has chosen not to.
“18 USC 611: Voting by Aliens
§611. Voting by aliens
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless-”
…and then it goes on to list a few exceptions.
The President has a clear duty to enforce this law, and President Trump’s EO does exactly that.
Congress already passed the law this judge is saying must be passed before a President can issue such an EO.
DEI POS appointed by Monkey thinks she is the national law.
First of all, the bit about “a candidate for the office of President, Vice President” is stupid because there are no such elections. And the bit about “Presidential elector” is beyond Congress’s powers. But that’s not really relevant, since Congress does have the power to do this for the other offices listed, so the law is valid in part, and in practice no state is going to have separate rolls, so in practice it’s completely valid. So let’s put that aside.
The main point is that the president’s authority to enforce the law does not give him any authority to order the states around and tell them how they must handle voter registration. Every state “verifies” a voter’s citizenship by demanding a statement under penalty of perjury that the voter is a citizen. That’s a piss-poor verification, but no law says they must have anything stronger, and the president can’t make up such a requirement. Congress must urgently pass the SAVE bill, or at least some cut-down version of it; but so far it hasn’t.
Addressing the general idea of voter validation rather than the specifics of this individual instance of possible safeguards v fraud……
If requiring voter ID is a violation of civil rights when are we going to see the courts so rule for requiring ID to open a checking account, board an airplane, enter a courthouse, or….. enter the Obama Presidential Library?
Demoncraps know their minority and illegal supporters are really stupid, and that getting voter ID is a major challenge for them. Especially the illegal invaders, which they depend on for illegal votes which yield handouts to the invaders. Like buying fake votes in CA for $2 each. Democrats/communists getting votes depends on making it simple for the lazy, greedy, and stupid.
Who said that? Even the most radical Dems don’t say that, so long as everyone can get a compliant ID without any expense or significant burden. They claim that there exist people who can’t do that, and they’re actually correct. Such people do exist. But in my opinion, and I think in the vast majority of people’s opinion, that’s a reasonable price to pay for election integrity. I’m OK with a small number of eligible voters being prevented from voting, in return for many more ineligible voters also being prevented.
None of those are rights. That’s why there can be such a thing as a no-fly list, and searches without a warrant. If boarding a plane were a right, then TSA would be unconstitutional.
“Even the most radical Dems don’t say that”???
Knock knock knock… Milhouse…
Knock knock knock… Milhouse…
Knock knock knock… Milhouse…
Milhouse, you should really indulge in your inner Sheldon less.
Via google a plethora of (D) and (D) aligned groups taking just that stance appear.
The AFL-CIO alone gives 25 reasons they believe it violates civil rights.
A plethora of other (D) and (D) aligned groups appear as well.
https://aflcio.org/2014/5/9/25-reasons-why-voter-identification-laws-are-unconstitutional-courtesy-wisconsin
Your statement reminds me of a clip from The Lincoln Lawyer where a detective under oath says he’s never heard of an interrogation room being called a “hot box”.
The judge immediately warns him either it’s his first day OTJ or he’s just committed perjury.
Did you read your own link? The key phrase that underpins the whole thing is “unduly burden”. Without that burden they admit there would be no civil rights violation. Exactly as I wrote.
You know, sometimes I wish the American public would wake up, read Amendment 9, and realize that just because we don’t list rights in the Constitution, doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist — and that we would claw back some of the freedoms we should properly have!
The 9th amendment does not protect a right to board an airplane.
The 9th amendment is not some magic button that you can use to make up whatever rights you like.
Perhaps not, but because the 9th has pretty much been ignored, no one is pushing the boundaries of what ought to be protected.
I wouldn’t say we have a right to board a plane, for example, because the owner of the plane has private property rights and the right to free association — however, I would make the case that it’s not the government’s business whether someone gets on a plane or not, and maintaining secret lists is a fundamental disruption to the right to travel.
There’s a huge swath of life that is regulated by government, with little to no research to confirm that these things improve our lives.
I would propose, for example, that if we got rid of drivers licenses and registration overnight, and kept the “reckless driving” and other laws related to our actions on the books, our safety level would probably remain constant, with a real possibility that it could even increase slightly.
This social engineer might want to read Title 18.
The eventual end state necessary to combat ‘bad’, legally insufficient or outright fraudulent voter registration lists is probably gonna be to implement a simple change. The primary process would be voluntary cooperation from States with Feds to conduct rigorous registration list maintenance to remove dead, moved out of State other legally insufficient registrations. Those which cooperate no further action needed. The States that refuse? Congress gonna have to require that in any uncooperative State the Feds will.set up a parallel Federal voter registration system and use Fed only ballots Federal offices; House, Senate, President. Do that and the shenanigans end. Not just for those Federal offices either b/c by having a parallel list to compare the shenanigans of bad registrations within the State run system become very easy to identify.
Sounds legit, but let’s ask Milhouse. Is he up yet?
I don’t think Congress can take over the actual running of congressional elections. It can make laws for how the states must run them, but what you seem to be proposing is that it should have the federal government run its own congressional elections from top to bottom, completely bypassing the states, and I don’t think it can do that.
So no, the way it needs to go is that Congress requires the states to verify citizenship on registration, and to only allow verified voters to vote in congressional elections. Congress has no power over presidential elections, but in practice that doesn’t matter. If it happens for congress it’ll happen for president too. And for state elections as well, which is a bonus.
When are all these activist judges that don’t give a flip about America going to be removed from the bench and lose their law license?
Judges aren’t supposed to “give a flip about America”. They’re supposed to apply the law as it is, not as they think it should be. And that’s exactly what this judge appears to have done.
We don’t actually know whether she approves of the order she struck down. We can guess that she probably doesn’t, but an honest judge who did approve of it would probably still have stricken it down.
“”They’re supposed to apply the law as it is, not as they think it should be.””
Which is why the claim that the duty of the judicial system is to “interpret” the law is one of most pernicious errors in our system.
No, it isn’t. That’s exactly what the judicial power is: “The power to say what the law is”. But the judge must say what she honestly believes the law to be, not what she wishes it were.
I noticed that every one of the states that are against this requirement are all BLUE states. That certainly says a lot to me !
Yes, of course. Democrats are for fraud, Republicans are against it, because both parties believe that on balance fraud helps Democrats. If they believed the opposite their positions would be reversed.