Judge Indira Talwani (D. Mass.) ordered the government to halt implementation of key portions of President Trump’s executive order on elections.
The ruling prevents federal government agencies from compiling a list of eligible voters; it prevents the Postal Service from initiating rulemaking on mail-in ballots; and it halts the government from enforcing certain provisions against states.
While the ruling is a sharp rebuke, the Trump Administration will surely appeal.
The case, State of California v. Trump, tests the constitutionality of three portions of President Trump’s EO on “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” Twenty-three states sued to halt these provisions:
(1) Section 2 of the EO, which directs the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in coordination with the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of citizens eligible to vote in a specific state, and directs the Department of Homeland Security to transmit these “Confirmed Citizen Lists” to each state at least 60 days before a scheduled federal election;
Section 3, which directs the Postmaster General to initiate rulemaking regarding “election mail design,” to provide each state with a list of individuals “enrolled with the USPS,” and not to transmit a ballot of any voter who hasn’t been “enrolled”;
Sections 2 and 5, which describe certain federal criminal offenses and require the Attorney General to prioritize the prosecution of state and local officials who issue ballots to individuals who are not eligible to voter; and
Section 5, which strongly suggests that states retain voting records for five years.
The court ruled that the President lacked authority to issue the EO in each of these areas.
The court started by noting that the Voter Qualifications Clause (for members of the House), the Seventeenth Amendment (for members of the Senate), the Elections Clause, and the Electors Clause all say that states, not the federal government, have default power over federal elections. At the same time, the court acknowledged that Congress has authority to “make or alter” state election laws under the Elections Clause, and that it has done so through several acts, including the Help America Vote Act.
But the court said that nothing in the Constitution or federal law gave the President the power to issue these orders.
As to compiling the lists, the court simply held that the President has no power to order this.
As to USPS regulations, the court said that USPS lacks statutory authority to issue regulations on mail-in voting, and that in any event the EO requires USPS to act on a timeline that’s inconsistent with federal law.
As to enforcement, the court held that to the extent that the EO attempts to intimidate state and local election officials to use the federally created eligible-voter lists, it’s invalid.
Finally, as to voting-record retention, the court said that Congress set a twenty-two-month retention requirement, and that the President has no authority to extend it.
Leave a Reply