A group of advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging Donald Trump’s recent executive order seeking to overhaul the U.S. election system, accusing the president of trying to enact “unlawful actions” to enforce “lawless mandates.”
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s unilateral efforts to reshape voting in federal elections — including requiring proof of citizenship when registering and restricting mail-in voting deadlines — exceeds his authority as president and threatens to strip millions of their voting rights.
“The Order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the President authority to declare election rules by executive fiat,” the lawsuit alleged. “The Order is an attack on the constitutionally mandated checks and balances that keep American elections free and fair.”
The lawsuit — filed in the D.C. federal court by the Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a League of United Latin American Citizens, Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association — asks a federal judge to block the implementation of parts of the order and force the Trump administration to rescind any guidance they issued.
It names a number of defendants, including the Executive Office of the President, the Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, as well as the United States Election Assistance Commission and its commissioners — an independent government commissioner focused on election administration.
Trump’s executive order, signed last week, alleged that the United States “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections.” The order instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute elections crimes in states the administration deems are not in compliance with federal law, requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter registration lists, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to withhold federal funding if states do not institute “uniform and nondiscriminatory” standards for counting votes.
“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error,” the order said.
Specifically, the executive order calls for proof of citizenship nationwide on the form used when registering to vote — a change from current election laws and a provision voting rights experts have taken issue with. Documents that can be used for proof, according to the order, include a passport, Real ID, a military ID card, or a valid federal or state ID.
But the lawsuit points out that the order does not accept identification documents issued by Tribal governments or birth certificates as forms of proof. The suit also raises questions about the approved methods, arguing that only half of Americans possess a passport and “most” Real IDs do not indicate citizenship.
Regardless, the lawsuit suggests the order’s direction to the Election Assistance Commission to change the form to add the proof of citizenship requirement could violate the Voter Registration Act of 1993, which according to the lawsuit gives the EAC “exclusive authority” to administer the form.
“In keeping with the NVRA’s intent to create a simple and easy-to-complete registration form, the NVRA specifies that the Federal Form may not “include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” the lawsuit states.
Trump’s order suggested that noncitizens can easily vote in federal elections, but experts have called noncitizen voting a “vanishingly rare phenomenon” that is easily prosecuted. According to a study of over 23 million votes cast in the 2016 election, officials identified only 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting, only 0.0001% of the total votes cast.
Separately, the executive order also takes aim at mail-in voting, making federal funding conditional on states setting a deadline for ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump — who was charged with multiple federal crimes for his effort to overturn the 2020 election in cases that were dropped once he was elected — has repeatedly suggested that mail-in ballots have led to an increase in voting fraud.
The lawsuit claims the provision about mail-in ballots is unlawful, arguing that “states have wide discretion and flexibility” to establish the time, place, and manner of federal elections under the Elections and Electors Clauses in the Constitution.
“Congress can enact election laws if it chooses, but absent a conflict with federal law, States have the power to establish and follow their own election laws,” the lawsuit states.
According to the suit, seventeen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have laws that allow ballots to be counted as long as they are mailed by Election Day and received by a certain deadline afterward.
“Many of these States have had such receipt deadlines for many years, and Congress has declined to pass any laws dictating ballot receipt deadlines,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit notes that Congress has “long established” that the federal Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, in addition to establishing the date that presidential electors must be appointed, but “has left further regulation in this area largely up to States.” The lawsuit says the U.S. Supreme Court “has said that while votes must be cast by Election Day, some aspects of the election process, such as tabulating all votes, will naturally take place after Election Day.”
“The Attorney General does not have the authority to ‘enforce’ the federal Election Day statutes, and the President cannot order her to do so. Nor does a State “violate” those statutes when it counts validly cast ballots mailed by Election Day that are received after Election Day if State law so allows,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also suggests the executive order could make it harder for citizens abroad and those serving in the military to vote. The executive order signed by Trump directs to secretary of defense to update the form used by these groups to register and request an absentee ballot — called the “Federal Post Card Application” — to include a requirement of documentary proof of citizenship as well as “proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.”
The lawsuit notes this form is required by law as part of the the The Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, passed in 1986 to “protect the voting rights of Americans serving in the military, their families, and other U.S. citizens living abroad.” The suit claims the changes required by the order would be “impossible given the format required by Congress.”
“Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has any legal authority to disregard UOCAVA’s statutory requirement to make such a post card available to military and overseas voters,” the lawsuit states.
Together, these provisions would have a “significant impact” on voting rights., the lawsuit claims.
Members of LULAC — a Hispanic and Latin American civil rights organization — for example, would be harmed if some of its members “who are eligible to vote often do not have the requisite citizenship documents.” the lawsuit states. The organization expects that efforts to register voters “will plummet.”
The Arizona Students’ Association will similarly be harmed by the proof of citizenship requirement, the lawsuit states, despite it being required when voters register on the state form there.
“Even those members who are able to register face imminent harm. Some members will be able to obtain or access DPOC only by spending significant time, money, and/or effort to do so, and will face greater difficulty registering because of the DPOC Requirement,” the lawsuit said.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
The post Organizations file suit challenging Trump’s effort to overhaul election system appeared first on ABC News.
