By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge in Seattle ruled against the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14248, which sought to reshape election administration, including requiring proof of citizenship and ending vote-by-mail systems that count ballots received after Election Day. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit from Oregon and Washington, states that utilize vote-by-mail. The court found that the President lacked the constitutional authority to dictate election procedures, citing the Constitution’s assignment of election regulation to the states and Congress. Consequently, multiple provisions of the executive order were permanently blocked, and the states were permitted to maintain their existing ballot-receipt deadlines.
Read the original article here
The Constitution assigns no authority to the president: States win injunction as judge swats down Trump effort to ban vote-by-mail “to restore the proper balance of power”
The judge’s decision, clearly aimed at “restoring the proper balance of power,” is a welcome development in a political climate often marked by overreach. The court’s intent to curb the executive branch’s unchecked authority is a breath of fresh air. It’s a crucial step in preventing the constant erosion of checks and balances that are fundamental to a healthy democracy. The implications for the upcoming elections are significant. It’s hard not to notice the intense concern from certain factions, the ones who seem to understand that a fair election could mean drastic changes to the political landscape.
The heart of the matter lies in a simple, yet vital, principle: the President lacks the power to unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds or override Congress’s decisions. The judge’s ruling, grounded in precedent, reinforces this. It’s refreshing to see the judiciary stand firm against attempts to usurp the democratic process. This is a crucial win for the integrity of elections and, by extension, the core principles of the United States. It’s a testament to the perseverance of those states fighting to uphold the rights of all citizens. The potential for the Supreme Court to intervene, however, introduces a note of uncertainty. If the highest court were to side against the established precedents, it could undermine the foundations of American democracy.
One of the most concerning aspects of the current political environment is the relentless misinformation regarding voter fraud. Claims of widespread mail-in ballot fraud, for example, are often exaggerated. The actual incidence of fraud is minuscule, especially when compared to the magnitude of the voting population. Such claims are often used to justify restrictive measures that disproportionately impact certain demographics. The focus should be on making voting accessible and secure, not on creating barriers.
The persistent attempts to undermine confidence in the electoral system are deeply troubling. The efforts to manipulate the rules in favor of specific outcomes are a threat to democracy itself. The President’s disdain for being told he lacks authority, coupled with the rhetoric of a “liberal judge,” foreshadows future legal battles. The possibility of the Supreme Court overturning these crucial decisions is also a major concern.
The debate over mail-in voting is particularly heated. It is worth noting the irony that Trump himself uses mail-in voting. Concerns about the integrity of the voting system are raised with a fervor that can seem disingenuous. The focus should be on enabling all citizens to exercise their right to vote. The potential impacts on voters is clear, especially with any changes to the postal service’s practices in place.
The attempts to manipulate the election process are disheartening. The possibility of suspending elections, should things turn sour, is a sign of a deeper crisis. If that were to happen, the situation would rapidly deteriorate. Attempts to use federal agencies to intimidate voters are very concerning. The idea of using agencies under the guise of “ensuring illegals aren’t voting” is a transparent effort to suppress voter turnout. It’s a dangerous path that threatens the very foundation of fair elections.