Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Election Agenda in Latest Defeat for President
A federal judge on Friday has dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's election agenda, ruling that the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, the authority to exercise power over elections.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge John Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington in striking down provisions of the executive order aimed at revising election rules nationwide. The order required proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form, banned the use of machine-readable codes when tallying ballots, and prohibited the counting of ballots postmarked Election Day but received afterwards.
The judge's ruling marked the latest defeat for Trump's efforts to reshape the electoral landscape in his image. Last year, two other federal judges blocked similar provisions of the order, citing constitutional concerns about the president's unilateral power over elections.
"The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things, and that federal law doesn't either," said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative.
The ruling has significant implications for Trump's plans to change federal election laws. With Congress having stalled on such legislation, the executive order was seen as a key mechanism for advancing his agenda. However, with this latest defeat, Trump faces long odds in achieving his goals.
Outside of some Republican-majority states that have banned mail-voting grace periods, there has been little success in changing state-level voting policies. The executive order's impact within the federal government is also limited, according to Clinger, who noted that it has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize violations of election laws.
The ruling comes as Trump plans a second executive order on elections, although its contents remain unclear. Federal court rulings so far suggest that the president faces significant challenges in advancing his agenda.
Trump's approach to elections, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University, boils down to "projecting power that he doesn't have." He added that Trump and his allies lack a clear plan for advancing their agenda, which has led to skepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts.
A federal judge on Friday has dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's election agenda, ruling that the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, the authority to exercise power over elections.
In his decision, U.S. District Judge John Chun sided with the states of Oregon and Washington in striking down provisions of the executive order aimed at revising election rules nationwide. The order required proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form, banned the use of machine-readable codes when tallying ballots, and prohibited the counting of ballots postmarked Election Day but received afterwards.
The judge's ruling marked the latest defeat for Trump's efforts to reshape the electoral landscape in his image. Last year, two other federal judges blocked similar provisions of the order, citing constitutional concerns about the president's unilateral power over elections.
"The court is very clear that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to do any of these things, and that federal law doesn't either," said Derek Clinger, a senior staff attorney with the University of Wisconsin Law School's State Democracy Research Initiative.
The ruling has significant implications for Trump's plans to change federal election laws. With Congress having stalled on such legislation, the executive order was seen as a key mechanism for advancing his agenda. However, with this latest defeat, Trump faces long odds in achieving his goals.
Outside of some Republican-majority states that have banned mail-voting grace periods, there has been little success in changing state-level voting policies. The executive order's impact within the federal government is also limited, according to Clinger, who noted that it has instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize violations of election laws.
The ruling comes as Trump plans a second executive order on elections, although its contents remain unclear. Federal court rulings so far suggest that the president faces significant challenges in advancing his agenda.
Trump's approach to elections, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University, boils down to "projecting power that he doesn't have." He added that Trump and his allies lack a clear plan for advancing their agenda, which has led to skepticism about the effectiveness of their efforts.
this latest ruling just shows how deep the divide is between the executive branch and states on election laws 
i feel like trump's trying to exert too much control over something that's meant to be a democratic process, you know? it's wild that he'd even think he can change federal laws on his own 
like what's going on with trump he can't even make simple changes to elections without getting blocked by judges lol guess you could say he got schooled again on that one 
so yeah good luck with that 
. States and congress have been doing just fine without your input for centuries. And what's with the proof of citizenship nonsense? that's basic voter ID 101 
. glad some judges are holding trump accountable, even if it's a bit late in the game 
like Derek said, the court is super clear that trump doesn't have the power to make all these changes on his own. and now he's planning another executive order? yeah good luck with that, dude 
i mean, trump's approach to elections is just so...projecting power that he doesn't have 
! The fact that the Constitution is being used as a guideline in this whole election debacle is pretty amazing 
. I mean can you imagine if politicians were just making up rules left and right? Chaos would ensue 
. Fingers crossed 
.
.
. I don't think Trump will be able to change federal election laws without some serious help from Congress 
.
. The fact that a judge even had to rule on whether or not the president has the authority to change election rules is just mind-blowing to me. I mean, come on, we have a system of checks and balances for a reason! 
. 
".