Trump cannot create federal voter list or limit mail ballot access, judge rules
A federal judge has struck down key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at reshaping election administration, ruling that the President exceeded his
A federal judge has struck down key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at reshaping election administration, ruling that the President exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to create a federal voter eligibility system and restrict access to mail ballots. The decision marks the second major court setback in two days for Trump's efforts to increase federal oversight of US elections. What did the judge rule? US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that key provisions of Trump's March executive order are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced during the 2026 midterm election cycle. The judge found that The President cannot create a federal list of eligible voters. The President cannot direct the US Postal Service to determine who may receive mail ballots. Those provisions violate the constitutional separation of powers because election rules are primarily set by states and Congress, not the White House. Talwani described the provisions as "legally void" because they improperly transferred election authority to the executive branch. What was Trump's executive order trying to do? The executive order sought to Create a federal citizenship voter database The administration wanted federal agencies, including US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration, to help compile a nationwide list of eligible voters.
The proposed database would be shared with states to verify voter eligibility. Link mail ballots to the federal list The order directed the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to voters appearing on the federal eligibility list. Supporters argued the measure would prevent noncitizens from voting. Critics said it would create confusion, disenfranchise legitimate voters and place election responsibilities in the hands of a federal agency not designed to administer elections. Why did states challenge the order? A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia argued that the Constitution gives states and Congress—not the President—the authority to regulate elections. The states contended that The order intruded on state election powers. Compliance would impose significant costs on election administrators. The system could disrupt voting ahead of the November 2026 midterms. It could create uncertainty and fear among voters and election officials. The lawsuit was led largely by Democratic attorneys general, although lawyers representing Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also joined the challenge. Why did the judge act now? The Trump administration argued that challenges were premature because the order had not yet been fully implemented. Judge Talwani disagreed.
The BriefWire