Elections at Risk? Trump Seeks to Change the Rules, But the States Are Opposing Him!

The states of Oregon and Washington have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prevent President Donald Trump and his administration from interfering with their long-standing election laws. The lawsuit challenges President Trump’s Executive Order 14248, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which aims to reshape election administration across the country.

The executive order, issued on March 25, purports to enforce requirements for voters to prove citizenship with formal documentation and seeks to halt vote-by-mail systems that count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward. Both Oregon and Washington have relied on vote-by-mail as their primary voting method for decades.

In a 35-page motion for partial summary judgment filed on Thursday, the states are asking U.S. District Judge John H. Chun to permanently block several sections of Trump’s order, arguing they are unconstitutional and exceed the president’s legal authority.

The motion asserts, “The Constitution is clear: States are responsible for regulating ‘[t]he Times, Places and Manner’ of federal elections, subject only to alteration by Congress. The President has no constitutional authority to interfere with state election laws. Nor has Congress given the President statutory authority to do so.”

The plaintiffs are seeking a swift resolution at the district court level, contending that the order lacks any legal basis to overturn electoral practices long established and exercised by the states.

“Among other things, this order purports to impose new restrictions on registering to vote, set aside long-standing and widespread state laws setting ballot-return deadlines, and dictate which voting machines can be federally certified,” the motion reads. “But the President has no authority to do any of this. And by attempting to assert unilateral control over elections, the President is threatening the foundation of our democracy.”

The states argue that without constitutional or statutory authority, Trump’s order is invalid, and any federal agencies attempting to enforce it would be acting unlawfully.

A key point of contention for the plaintiffs is the executive order’s attempt to prohibit states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. In Washington and Oregon, ballots postmarked on or before Election Day are counted even if they arrive afterward.

President Trump has likened these state laws to “allowing persons who arrive 3 days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared, to vote in person at a former voting precinct.” To enforce this, the government has sought to condition federal funding to states on the exclusion of ballots received after Election Day and has even suggested using criminal prosecutions to ensure compliance.

The states argue that the Trump administration’s efforts to change their ballot receipt deadlines are ultra vires (beyond legal power or authority) and have no basis in federal law. They point out that federal law does not establish a ballot receipt deadline and that the statutes cited in the executive order are silent on when timely-cast ballots must be received. The states assert that the President cannot create new election regulations and that any attempt by the Attorney General to enforce such a deadline or impose new conditions on federal funding without congressional approval is illegal.

The motion further argues that Trump’s order misinterprets federal statutes to create a “ballot receipt deadline of Election Day for all methods of voting.” Instead, the states contend that the cited statutes merely establish a uniform day for federal general elections and do not address ballot deadlines.

Beyond the issue of mail-in ballots, the states also argue that presidents lack any inherent power over elections, including the authority to alter voting system guidelines or dictate which voting systems can be federally certified. They emphasize that Congress has created election laws and the Election Assistance Commission to handle such detailed regulations, and that Trump’s order attempts to “upend the statutory scheme” by replacing bipartisan consensus based on expertise with presidential whims and conspiracy theories.

In conclusion, the states argue that the executive order disregards the constitutional division of power over elections between the states and the federal government and the separation of powers within the federal government itself, thereby threatening the principles of American democracy.