Federal judge rules Trump can’t require citizenship proof on the federal voting form
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democrats and civil rights groups who sued the Trump administration over its executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.
It ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who argued that such a mandate was needed to restore public confidence that only Americans vote in U.S. elections.
“Because our Constitution places responsibility for election regulations in the hands of the States and Congress, this Court finds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. he wrote.
He also emphasized that in matters related to determining voting qualifications and regulating federal election procedures, “the Constitution does not give the President a direct role in either area.”
Kollar-Kotelly reiterated the comments she made when granting the preliminary injunction on the matter. The decision grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment barring the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which is considering adding this requirement to the federal voter form, has been permanently barred from taking action to do so. Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that the decision “is a clear victory for our democracy. President Trump’s attempt to put documentary evidence of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional usurpation of power.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Although a top priority for Republicans, efforts to enforce documented citizenship requirements for voting have been fraught. The U.S. House passed a civil mandate last spring that stalled in the Senate, and many attempts to pass similar legislation in states have proved equally difficult.
Such requirements created problems and confusion for voters when enacted at the state level. This poses certain obstacles for married women who change their names, as they may be required to show birth certificates and marriage certificates, as well as government ID. These challenges arose when the proof of citizenship requirement was first introduced during local elections in New Hampshire earlier this year.
A proof of citizenship requirement that had been in effect for three years in Kansas created chaos until it was overturned in federal court. Nearly 30,000 people were prevented from registering to vote.
Non-citizen voting also appeared to be rare.
The lawsuit filed by the DNC and various civil rights groups will proceed, allowing the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s decision. This includes requiring all ballots to be received by mail rather than postmark by Election Day.
Other lawsuits filed against Trump’s election decree are ongoing.
In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where nearly all voting is done by mail-in ballots, have filed their own lawsuits challenging the decision.
