Federal Judge Blocks Parts of Trump's Executive Order on Elections, Ruling Against Proof of Citizenship Requirements

A second federal judge has dealt a significant blow to Donald Trump's executive order on elections, which required proof of citizenship to vote in US elections. The ruling, made by federal judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts, grants an injunction that stops certain provisions of the order from going into effect. The order, described as "the farthest-reaching executive action taken" in the nation's history by the White House, has been the subject of multiple lawsuits since its announcement in March.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general, who argued that the president's directive exceeded his authority and would disenfranchise millions of people, including women who have changed their names in marriage. The Democrats claim that the executive order would have led to "election crimes" prosecutions and the cutting of federal funding to noncompliant states.

Key Takeaways:

• The Trump administration's executive order on elections, which required proof of citizenship to vote, was deemed unconstitutional by federal judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts.
• The ruling grants an injunction that blocks the implementation of certain provisions of the order, including the requirement that federal voter registration forms must include proof of citizenship.
• The judge ruled that the president does not have the authority to impose this requirement on the states, citing a lack of evidence to support the claim that large numbers of non-citizens are voting in national elections.
• The Save Act, a bill moving through Congress, also proposed documentary proof of citizenship requirements, which voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people, including women who have changed their names in marriage.
• The executive order made extensive changes to voting eligibility and processes, including empowering federal agencies to cut funding to states deemed noncompliant and instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute "election crimes."
• The ruling is the latest development in a series of legal battles between the Trump administration and Democratic state attorneys general over the legitimacy of federal executive actions.

Statistics:

• The executive order was described as "the farthest-reaching executive action taken" in the nation's history by the White House.
• A bill in Congress, the Save Act, proposed documentary proof of citizenship requirements and other provisions that voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people.
• The lawsuit against the executive order was brought by Democratic state attorneys general in response to what they claim is an overreach by the Trump administration.

Sources:

• "Federal judge blocks parts of Trump's executive order on elections" (Associated Press)
• "Trump's executive order on elections faces new legal challenge" (Politico)