By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Fueled by former President Trump’s calls for stricter voting measures and concerns about election integrity, a House-passed bill requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID for voting now heads to the Senate. Despite Trump’s assertion that he will implement national voter ID requirements via executive order if Congress fails to act, the bill faces significant hurdles in the Senate, where Democrats vow to block its passage. Critics argue the legislation, dubbed the SAVE America Act, could disenfranchise voters and serve as a pretext for election interference, while proponents maintain it is essential for securing election outcomes.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump has recently stated his intention to issue an executive order aimed at implementing voter ID requirements across the nation, with a particular focus on their presence before the upcoming midterm elections. This announcement has sparked considerable discussion and raised questions about the practicalities and legality of such a move.
The core of the issue lies in the nature of executive orders themselves. It’s important to understand that executive orders, while carrying significant weight, are not laws in the same way that legislation passed by Congress is. They primarily direct federal agencies and officials on how to implement existing laws or manage the executive branch. When it comes to elections, the landscape is particularly complex because the Constitution largely delegates the authority to conduct elections to individual states.
Therefore, a significant point of contention is whether a federal executive order can effectively mandate voter ID requirements on states that may not already have such laws in place or choose not to adopt them. Many observers point out that states are the primary arbiters of their election procedures, and federal directives in this area often face legal challenges. The idea of a president essentially dictating election rules to sovereign states is seen by some as overstepping constitutional boundaries.
There’s a strong sentiment that such an executive order, if issued, would likely find itself entangled in the courts. Opponents anticipate that legal battles would ensue, potentially delaying or even nullifying the order’s intended impact, especially if it seeks to override existing state laws or impose new mandates that conflict with state control over elections. The argument is that states have the inherent right to manage their electoral processes, and a presidential executive order does not possess the authority to supersede this fundamental aspect of federalism.
The timing of this potential executive order is also a significant factor, given its stated connection to the midterm elections. This has led to accusations that the move is politically motivated, aimed at influencing election outcomes rather than addressing genuine concerns about election integrity. The concern is that such an order could be seen as an attempt to disenfranchise certain groups of voters who might have difficulty obtaining the required identification.
Furthermore, the practical implications for citizens are a major consideration. Obtaining specific forms of identification, such as birth certificates or passports, can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process for many. There’s a fear that if new, stringent ID requirements are suddenly put into effect via executive order, a considerable number of eligible voters could be inadvertently or deliberately prevented from casting their ballots. This is particularly concerning for individuals who may have lost or misplaced important documents, or for those whose identification might not perfectly match their current legal name due to marriage or other life events.
The effectiveness of an executive order in overriding established state election processes is also questioned. While some Republican-leaning states might be inclined to follow such a directive, Democratic-leaning states are less likely to comply, potentially creating a patchwork of different voting rules across the country. This scenario could lead to confusion and further fuel claims of unfairness or attempted manipulation of the electoral system.
The argument that executive orders are limited in their scope to the federal executive branch and its agencies is frequently raised. Since elections are managed at the state level, an executive order attempting to impose a nationwide voter ID mandate would be seen as an attempt to exert federal control over a domain that constitutionally belongs to the states. This fundamental misunderstanding of how executive orders interact with state powers is a key point of criticism.
There’s also a broader concern that this proposed action is part of a larger pattern of attempts to manipulate or undermine democratic processes. Critics point to past claims of election fraud and suggest that the push for stricter voter ID laws, especially through executive action, is a strategy to lay the groundwork for challenging election results if they are not favorable. The idea is that by creating barriers to voting, any subsequent unfavorable outcome can be more easily contested.
Ultimately, the viability and legality of Donald Trump’s stated intention to use an executive order to implement voter ID requirements before the midterms remain highly questionable. The constitutionality, the practical challenges for voters, and the division of powers between federal and state governments all present significant obstacles. The situation highlights ongoing debates about election integrity, voting access, and the appropriate use of presidential executive power.