Listen to the article
A federal judge on Friday issued a significant ruling against portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order on elections, specifically blocking federal agencies from inquiring about citizenship status when distributing voter registration forms.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, permanently barred two provisions of the executive order that sought to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements. The ruling prevents agencies from assessing citizenship before providing federal voter registration forms to people enrolling in public assistance programs. It also prohibits the Secretary of Defense from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.
In her decision, Judge Kollar-Kotelly emphasized constitutional principles, writing, “Put simply, our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures.” She pointed to the separation of powers doctrine, which gives states and Congress primary authority over establishing election rules.
“Our democracy works best when all Americans can participate, including members of our military and their families living overseas,” said Danielle Lang, a voting rights expert with the Campaign Legal Center, which represented plaintiffs in the case. “Today’s ruling removes a very real threat to the freedom to vote for overseas military families and upholds the separation of powers.”
The White House expressed disappointment but indicated the legal fight would continue. “Ensuring only citizens vote in our elections is a commonsense measure that everyone should be able to support,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “This is not the final say on the matter and the administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”
This ruling represents the latest in a series of legal setbacks for Trump’s executive order on elections. In October, the same judge blocked the administration from adding documentary proof of citizenship requirements to the federal voter registration form. Separate lawsuits by Democratic state attorneys general and by Oregon and Washington have successfully challenged various other portions of the order.
The question of non-citizens voting became a central campaign issue for Republicans during the 2024 election cycle. Trump and his allies frequently raised concerns about election security and the integrity of voter rolls, with congressional Republicans continuing to push legislation that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
However, extensive research, including studies conducted by Republican state officials, has consistently shown that voting by non-citizens is exceedingly rare in American elections. Critics of these citizenship verification requirements argue they create unnecessary barriers to voting that disproportionately affect marginalized communities, military families stationed overseas, and elderly voters.
Election law experts note that federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, with violations punishable by fines, imprisonment, and deportation for non-citizens. These existing penalties serve as significant deterrents, explaining the rarity of such violations.
The ruling comes amid ongoing debates about federal versus state authority in managing elections. The Constitution generally gives states broad authority to determine the “times, places and manner” of federal elections, while allowing Congress to make or alter such regulations. Presidential executive orders have more limited scope in this domain.
This legal battle illustrates the tension between efforts to enhance election security measures and concerns about voter access. Voting rights advocates celebrate the ruling as a protection for eligible voters, particularly military personnel serving abroad, while the administration frames it as a setback for election integrity efforts.
As both sides prepare for possible appeals, the case highlights the continuing political and legal disputes surrounding American election administration and the delicate balance between accessibility and security in the democratic process.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
This is a noteworthy decision that pushes back against the Trump administration’s efforts to tighten voter eligibility requirements. The judge’s emphasis on constitutional limits is significant.
Agreed, the ruling highlights the importance of upholding democratic principles even on contentious political issues. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds further.
The judge’s focus on upholding constitutional principles and preventing unilateral changes to federal election procedures is encouraging. Protecting voting rights and inclusive access is critical.
Absolutely, the ruling appears to be an important safeguard for democratic norms and processes. Maintaining the balance of power between federal and state authorities on elections is crucial.
The ruling seems to protect the rights of military personnel and public assistance recipients to register and vote without facing overly burdensome citizenship requirements. Upholding inclusive voting access is crucial.
Absolutely, ensuring all eligible citizens can participate in elections is fundamental to democracy. This judge’s decision appears to be in line with those democratic principles.
Interesting ruling on Trump’s executive order. Seems the judge is protecting voting rights and the balance of power between federal and state authorities. Curious to see how this unfolds in the courts going forward.
Agreed, the separation of powers is a key principle that shouldn’t be overridden even on sensitive election issues. This ruling appears to uphold democratic checks and balances.
This is an interesting development in the ongoing legal battles over Trump’s executive actions on elections. The judge’s reasoning around separation of powers and state authority seems well-grounded.
Agreed, the ruling emphasizes the importance of checks and balances, even on sensitive electoral issues. It will be worth following how this case progresses through the courts.
This is a significant setback for Trump’s efforts to tighten voting rules. I wonder if the administration will appeal or try to find another way to implement these citizenship provisions.
The judge’s emphasis on constitutional principles and state authority over elections seems well-founded. It will be important to see if the administration pursues this further through the legal system.
The judge’s ruling seems to be an important check on the executive branch’s attempts to unilaterally change federal election procedures. Protecting voting rights and the separation of powers is critical.
Absolutely, this decision underscores the need to maintain proper checks and balances, even on sensitive topics like election rules. It will be worth monitoring how this case progresses.