By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at tightening voting rules, specifically targeting mail-in ballots by requiring the creation of eligible voter lists and barring the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to those not on these lists. This action has prompted immediate backlash and legal challenges from states like Oregon and Arizona, which rely heavily on mail-in voting systems. State officials in Oregon and Arizona have declared their intention to sue, asserting that states, not the federal government, are responsible for administering elections and that their established mail-in ballot systems are secure and effective. The order also calls for secure envelopes with unique barcodes for tracking ballots, though the president’s authority to mandate actions by the Postal Service is being questioned.
Read the original article here
Oregon finds itself at the forefront of a legal battle, emerging as one of the first states to challenge an executive order issued by then-President Trump that aimed to restrict mail-in voting. The move by Oregon, a state with a long-standing and successful vote-by-mail system, signals a significant pushback against federal overreach into state election administration. This challenge underscores a fundamental disagreement about the authority to regulate how elections are conducted, with Oregon asserting that such decisions lie squarely within the purview of individual states, not the federal government.
The executive order in question sought to implement several changes to election processes, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and mandating that mailed ballots be received by election offices by Election Day. These provisions were met with immediate and strong opposition from officials in states like Oregon and Arizona, who viewed them as an unconstitutional attempt to disenfranchise voters and a direct assault on established voting methods. Oregon’s Secretary of State, a Democrat, was particularly vocal, stating clearly that decrees from Washington D.C. were unnecessary and that the state would meet the challenge in court.
Senator Ron Wyden echoed this sentiment, emphasizing Oregon’s decades-long success with vote-by-mail and vowing to defend the state’s election integrity against any federal interference. His message to the White House was unambiguous: any attempt to alter Oregon’s voting system would be met with fierce resistance. This unified front from Oregon’s elected officials highlights the deep-seated belief that the state’s electoral processes are effective and should not be dictated by a president who, in their view, lacks the constitutional authority to do so.
Arizona’s Secretary of State, also a Democrat, pointed out the irony of the situation, noting that Arizona’s own secure and widely used vote-by-mail system was designed by Republicans and had been functioning effectively for years. The accusation was made that President Trump was attempting to manipulate voter rolls through federal agencies, a move deemed unacceptable and destined to be challenged. This perspective from Arizona further reinforces the notion that the executive order was not about improving election security but about exerting political control over election outcomes.
The legal arguments against the executive order often center on the U.S. Constitution’s clear delegation of authority to states to manage their own elections. Experts, including former Justice Department lawyers, have stated that the President has no constitutional power to dictate election procedures within states. This fundamental principle of federalism forms the bedrock of the legal challenges being mounted, suggesting that the executive order is not only ill-advised but also invalid from its inception. The very structure of American democracy relies on states having control over their electoral systems, and this order was seen as an unprecedented violation of that principle.
Furthermore, concerns were raised about the practical implications of the order, with some suggesting that it was designed to create chaos and disenfranchise voters, particularly in Democratic-leaning areas. The idea of the President attempting to “take over” elections in certain regions was viewed as a dangerous precedent and a clear indication of an attempt to undermine democratic processes. The argument was made that such actions, especially so close to an election year, would not only be unconstitutional but also create insurmountable logistical hurdles for states attempting to comply, thereby effectively blocking citizens’ right to vote.
The assertion that vote-by-mail is inherently insecure, a claim often made by President Trump, has been widely contested, especially by states like Oregon with extensive experience in this voting method. Data from Oregon indicates an extremely low rate of voter fraud associated with mail-in ballots, far less than one percent. This statistical evidence directly contradicts the narrative of widespread fraud and suggests that vote-by-mail is, in fact, a secure and reliable way to cast a ballot. The perception of fraud, critics argue, has been deliberately manufactured and amplified for political purposes.
The notion that a presidential executive order can supersede state control over elections is fundamentally flawed according to constitutional scholars. An executive order, unlike legislation passed by Congress, is primarily directed at the executive branch of the federal government. States are sovereign entities with their own constitutional authority to conduct elections. Therefore, an executive order attempting to dictate state election procedures, especially without a clear constitutional basis, is considered void. The legal battles that ensue are thus not just about specific voting policies but about the very balance of power between the federal government and the states.
The fact that Oregon was among the first states to announce its intention to sue underscores its commitment to protecting its electoral system. Its pioneering role in vote-by-mail, having utilized it successfully for over three decades, provides a strong foundation for its legal challenge. The state’s proactive stance sends a clear message that it will not passively accept federal mandates that threaten to undermine a system it has proven to be both effective and secure. This legal action is not just a defense of Oregon’s voting practices but a broader defense of state sovereignty in election matters.