By Matt Underwood The prospect of an executive emergency order granting a president extraordinary control over elections is a deeply unsettling one, and a recently surfaced draft order has understandably sparked significant concern and debate. At its core, this draft appears to be an attempt to bypass established legal and constitutional processes, asserting presidential authority in areas traditionally reserved for states and Congress. The language within the order suggests a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, for the separation of powers that underpins the American system of government.
One of the most striking elements of the draft is its provision mandating that voters re-register anew for future elections, and that this registration must occur in person at specific county offices. This measure is presented as a remedy to an alleged national emergency concerning election integrity. However, critics point out that such a sweeping requirement would undoubtedly create a substantial barrier to voting, particularly for those in rural areas, individuals with disabilities, or those with demanding work schedules. The intent, it seems, is to impose new, potentially burdensome registration requirements that could disenfranchise large segments of the electorate, especially in densely populated, likely more politically aligned, areas.
Furthermore, the draft order seems to imply that its measures should remain in place until Congress and the states enact legislation to comply. This circular logic is a significant point of contention, as it appears to be an overt effort to create legislation through an executive order, effectively circumventing the legislative branch’s primary role. An executive order, by its nature, is a directive to executive agencies and officials, not a tool for creating new laws. The power of an executive order is inherently limited, and it cannot unilaterally supersede existing law or the constitutional authority of Congress.
The idea that an executive order could impose such sweeping changes to election administration, which is largely a state-run process, raises serious constitutional questions. The Constitution clearly delineates the powers of the federal government and the states, and state control over election administration is a long-standing principle. It’s argued that states would be entirely within their rights to ignore such an order, viewing it as an overreach of presidential authority with no genuine jurisdiction over their electoral processes.
The draft order also includes provisions for voter identification, requiring a color photograph and full legal name. While photo identification for voting is a common practice, the specific details in the draft could disproportionately affect certain religious groups, such as Jewish and Muslim women who wear head coverings. This raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory application of such requirements, even if not explicitly intended as such.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect is the underlying rationale often cited for such measures: a conspiracy theory about foreign interference in past elections. The draft appears to suggest taking control of voting processes based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud. This narrative, it’s suggested, is being used to justify an authoritarian power grab, with proponents actively seeking data to fit this predetermined conclusion, as seen in instances of efforts to gather voting data from specific states.
Legal experts and observers are quick to point out that such an executive order would likely face swift and significant legal challenges. The Supreme Court has, in the past, limited the scope of presidential emergency powers, particularly when they are used to fundamentally alter established legal frameworks or usurp the authority of other branches of government. The argument is that this draft order constitutes “full-on legislation,” going far beyond the permissible scope of an executive directive and attempting to seize powers that do not belong to the executive branch. The Congressional Review Act, for instance, grants Congress the power to overturn agency regulations, including those stemming from executive orders, with a simple majority vote, suggesting that a president cannot unilaterally obstruct Congress’s ability to legislate or repeal executive actions.
The very nature of this draft order is seen by many as a stark warning sign, a “massive authoritarian power grab” that attempts to leverage the concept of a national emergency to grant the president unchecked authority. The notion that Congress could only stop such an order by complying with the president’s demands is a reflection of a deeply troubling authoritarian impulse. The echoes of historical authoritarian regimes and the warnings of constitutional scholars about the limits of presidential power are palpable when considering such proposals. The current political climate, where trust in democratic institutions is strained, makes such drafts all the more concerning, as they can serve to normalize radical ideas and erode public faith in the integrity of the electoral process. The calls for vigilance and active participation in democratic processes are amplified in the face of such perceived threats.