By Matt Underwood Trump Says He Plans to Issue Unconstitutional Order Requiring Voter ID and Banning Mail Ballots, and this is a really thorny situation, isn’t it? It’s like watching a political tightrope walker without a net. The core issue here, as I see it, is that the former president is reportedly planning to issue an order, potentially an executive order, that would force everyone to show a specific form of identification to vote and, even more controversially, ban mail-in ballots. Now, the immediate red flag that pops up is the legality, or rather, the illegality, of such a move. The president simply can’t make laws like that. The Constitution is pretty clear on this point.
The power to legislate, to make laws, lies with Congress, not the President. And when it comes to elections, things get even trickier. Elections are overwhelmingly run by the states. The federal government has some oversight, sure, but dictating voter ID requirements and outright banning mail-in ballots? That’s a bridge too far. The Constitution, the same document he likely swore to uphold, specifically grants states the primary authority to administer elections. This is not to say that it is impossible to come up with the perfect voting mechanism and legislation, but the method described is almost certainly going to run afoul of the rule of law.
The likely immediate response is going to be legal challenges. Any order like this would almost certainly be contested in court, and with good reason. Opponents would likely argue that this move disenfranchises voters, particularly those who face challenges in obtaining photo identification or who rely on mail-in ballots for accessibility. This is where things can get messy. We could be looking at prolonged legal battles, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, which could have significant implications for the upcoming elections.
And then there’s the practical side of things. Implementing such an order would be a logistical nightmare. Think about the millions of voters who might not have the required ID. Think about the disruption to the mail-in voting system, which has been in place for decades, even longer in certain states. Consider the military personnel serving overseas who rely on mail-in ballots to participate in their democratic right. It would be chaos. And all of it is on the table, reportedly.
It’s also worth noting the optics of this. Trump, let’s face it, has been a vocal critic of mail-in voting, often making unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. For him to then try to unilaterally restrict mail-in voting, well, it certainly raises suspicions about his motives, particularly in light of his connections with leaders from other countries, like Vladmir Putin. It seems like a direct copy from dictatorships, designed to create an image that undermines any trust the populace may have in their elections.
What makes it even more perplexing is the idea that this is being suggested. And the motivations behind it. It is no secret that the former president has been accused of numerous wrongdoings and crimes. This action, this reported action, seems like a continuation of a pattern of behavior that challenges democratic norms and the established legal framework. There’s a real danger that such actions could further erode public trust in the electoral process.
The details, of course, matter. The exact wording of the proposed order, the specific requirements for voter ID, the exemptions (if any), and the rationale behind it will all be crucial. But the underlying principle remains the same: any attempt to circumvent the legal processes and state control, and to unilaterally alter the rules of elections in this manner, is, in a word, problematic.
And, of course, there’s the question of enforcement. How would this order be enforced? Would federal agencies be deployed to monitor polling places? This raises serious concerns about voter intimidation and the potential for abuse of power. This feels like it goes against the very foundation of democracy.
The important thing for me to remember and relay, is that this is just a plan. A plan that has been described to have the full intention of going against the very basis of the constitution. A plan that should be challenged, and a plan that needs to be closely watched. The power of states to ignore this is paramount, along with the legal challenges that are sure to come.