By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent ruling, a federal judge has permanently blocked a portion of former President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding voter identification requirements. The order, which aimed to overhaul federal elections, was challenged by various groups and deemed unlawful because it would have required voters to present passports or similar documents to prove citizenship. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly determined that the U.S. Constitution grants states, not the president, the authority to oversee elections, making this part of the order illegal. The ruling comes amidst ongoing scrutiny of the electoral system and false claims of widespread fraud.
Read the original article here
Judge Permanently Blocks Trump Order Requiring Voters To Prove Their Citizenship is the headline, and for good reason. It’s a significant development in the ongoing saga of voting rights in the United States. The implications are far-reaching, and it’s essential to understand the context and the potential impact of such a ruling.
The core issue here is about access to the ballot box. The order, coming from the Trump administration, aimed to make it more difficult for people to vote by requiring them to provide specific documentation to prove their citizenship. While the idea of ensuring only citizens vote sounds straightforward, the practical reality is much more complex. Many legal voters, for a variety of reasons, don’t have easy access to the documentation that this order demanded.
This brings us to the real motive. It’s clear that the aim of this order was to suppress votes, specifically targeting groups that are known to vote in opposition to the political party behind the order. Historically, the GOP has been steadily working to suppress the vote by doing things like gerrymandering, creating restrictive voter ID laws, and challenging the outcomes of elections. The “big lie” of a stolen election, and all the conspiracy theories that followed, acted as a catalyst for these efforts, creating an environment of distrust and pushing for more control over the election system.
It’s about controlling power. The judge’s decision to block the order is essentially saying, “Nice try, but voter suppression isn’t a legitimate policy goal.” It’s a statement against efforts to manipulate the electorate through unnecessary hurdles, rather than focusing on election integrity. However, it’s not hard to feel a sense of worry that the Supreme Court could step in and reverse the judge’s decision, making the order valid.
The heart of the matter is that people are already required to verify their identity and citizenship when they register to vote. There are already safeguards in place. Voter ID laws, in principle, aren’t inherently bad, as long as it’s not a tactic to exclude eligible voters. If IDs are free, easily accessible, and don’t place undue burdens on certain groups, then it’s a different story. The problem arises when these requirements disproportionately affect certain demographics, like low-income individuals or the elderly.
The fact is, requiring these additional documents would have created obstacles for a substantial number of citizens. Studies show that a significant percentage of citizens lack easy access to these documents. Add to that the cost of obtaining some of these documents, and you’re essentially creating a “poll tax,” a system that effectively disenfranchises voters based on their financial circumstances.
The argument is that it’s designed to exclude voters. The details of how this system would work paint a picture of deliberate obstruction. Imagine a process where it costs a significant amount of money to apply, demands numerous forms of supplemental identification, is only available in specific locations, and has arbitrary requirements that could lead to denial of your application. It’s reminiscent of historical attempts to suppress the vote, like the literacy tests that were used to disenfranchise Black voters after the Civil War.
What it comes down to is this: the judge’s ruling is a victory for voting rights. It’s a reminder that democracy thrives when everyone has a voice, not when voting is made unnecessarily difficult. It’s a win for the principle of fair elections and a blow to those who would seek to manipulate the system for political gain. But, as with everything involving Trump and voting rights, the fight isn’t over. It’s a constant battle to protect the fundamental right to vote, and this ruling is just one step in a much larger struggle.