When Donald Trump signed an executive order in March, asserting radical powers of federal elections, it was widely assumed that the president’s power grab would spark lawsuits he was likely to lose. Those assumptions, unsurprisingly, were correct. CBS News reported:
A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked President Trump’s administration from implementing portions of his executive order that imposed new requirements involving proof of citizenship to register to vote in U.S. elections. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper agreed to grant a preliminary injunction sought by attorneys general from 19 states, who brought their legal challenge to Mr. Trump’s executive order in April and sought to block sections of it.
For those who might benefit from a recap, let’s review how we arrived at this point.
Last year, congressional Republicans tried to advance legislation called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (or SAVE Act), that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The bill did not, however, pass the Senate or become law.
This year, Trump apparently decided that he could just create the policy anyway through presidential fiat. It was an approach rooted in a fundamentally ridiculous governing vision: When Congress fails to pass a bill, presidents can simply implement the law anyway, without legislative approval.
What’s more, Trump’s executive order on this didn’t stop with just new requirements that would force Americans to prove their citizenship when registering to vote. It also imposed a variety of other election “reforms” — touching on everything from mail-in ballot deadlines to election equipment — that NBC News reported “could risk disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans.”
The president did all of this by exercising a legal authority he did not, and does not, have.
A Washington Post report summarized the problem succinctly: “The U.S. Constitution designates the power to regulate the ‘time, place and manner’ of elections to the states, with the proviso that Congress can step in and override those laws. It gives no specific power to the president to do so. Election experts said that Trump was claiming power he does not have and that lawsuits over the measure were all but guaranteed.”
With this in mind, a federal judge two months ago blocked enforcement of parts of the Republican’s directive, in response to cases filed by the Democratic Party and several voting rights advocates. Now, Judge Casper has followed suit. “There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” Casper wrote in her 44-page ruling. “The issue here is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created [Election Assistance Commission] is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration.” If recent history is any guide, the administration will appeal the ruling, and House Republicans could consider impeaching the judge in this case. Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
