By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This executive order seeks to establish federal lists of citizens and direct the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail ballots only to individuals on these lists. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile “state citizenship lists” from various federal records for states to verify their voter rolls. However, legal experts anticipate swift court challenges, citing the Constitution’s clear allocation of election administration powers to the states, making federal presidential overreach unlikely to stand. This action follows previous attempts by the president to influence election processes and impose stricter voter identification requirements.
Read the original article here
President Trump has recently signed an executive order that signals a significant federal move to create national voter lists. This directive aims to establish a federal database of citizens, with the intention of using it to cross-reference with state voter rolls. A notable component of this order involves the U.S. Postal Service, which would be tasked with only transmitting mail ballots to individuals appearing on these consolidated federal and state citizenship lists.
The mechanics of this new order involve the Department of Homeland Security being directed to compile “state citizenship lists.” These lists are to be assembled by drawing information from various federal records, including citizenship and naturalization documents, Social Security databases, and other existing federal information repositories. The ultimate goal is to use these federal compilations to assist states in verifying the accuracy of their own voter registration rolls.
There’s a considerable question mark surrounding the practical implementation of this directive, particularly concerning the U.S. Postal Service. The order asks the USPS to essentially police election mail by ensuring ballots are only sent to individuals on these verified lists. Given that the USPS is frequently described as a chronically underfunded agency, the feasibility and financial burden of absorbing this new mandate to scrutinize election-related mail are significant points of concern.
Interestingly, individuals who were involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results are reportedly connected to the discussions surrounding this executive order. This includes Kurt Olsen, now serving as director of election security and integrity at the White House, and Heather Honey, who holds a senior position within the Department of Homeland Security. Their involvement in shaping this directive has raised questions about its underlying motivations and potential implications.
From the perspective of many, this executive order appears to be a legally questionable and potentially unconstitutional overreach of presidential authority. The argument is frequently made that election administration is fundamentally a matter for the states, and that federal attempts to create centralized voter lists and dictate mail-in ballot distribution infringe upon this established state control. The very idea of federal intervention in this arena is seen by some as a fundamental assault on democratic principles and processes.
A significant concern expressed by critics is the potential for this federal voter list to be used for partisan advantage. The fear is that such a list could be leveraged to identify and subsequently remove voters from registration rolls, disproportionately affecting certain demographics. This could include married women, individuals with lower incomes, the homeless, people of color, and college students, potentially impacting voter turnout in ways that could alter election outcomes. The possibility of this list being used to target specific groups for removal from voter rolls is a deeply troubling prospect for many.
The constitutionality of this executive order is a major point of contention. Many believe that executive orders are not laws and that the authority to manage elections rests squarely with individual states. The idea that the executive branch can unilaterally create federal voter lists and dictate terms of mail-in ballot delivery is seen as a direct violation of this principle. The hope among critics is that the courts will intervene and strike down this order as legally unsound.
There is also skepticism about the USPS’s capacity and willingness to undertake the role assigned to it by the executive order. The agency is already facing financial pressures, and the added responsibility of verifying voter eligibility for ballot transmission is viewed by many as an impractical and potentially impossible task. The idea that the USPS would have the funding or the mandate to perform such a function is met with significant doubt.
The move also seems to be viewed by some as a desperate attempt to exert control over elections, particularly in light of past failures to overturn the 2020 election results. The argument is that this executive order is another tactic in a broader strategy to manipulate electoral processes, especially as a party faces the prospect of losing power. This perceived pattern of behavior fuels the anxiety and opposition to the order.
The historical stance of some Republicans on federal databases is also brought into question by this executive order. Many recall strong objections from the Republican party regarding government databases, particularly concerning firearms ownership, based on concerns about government overreach and the tracking of citizens. The irony of a Republican administration now seeking to create a federal voter database is not lost on these observers.
The order’s reliance on federal databases for citizenship lists also raises privacy concerns. The aggregation of information from sources like Social Security and naturalization records into a single federal voter list could create a substantial privacy risk for citizens. The potential for data breaches or misuse of such a comprehensive list is a serious consideration for many.
Ultimately, the executive order to create federal voter lists represents a significant and controversial expansion of federal authority into the realm of election administration. The concerns raised by critics span legal, practical, and democratic principles, focusing on potential abuses of power, privacy violations, and the erosion of state control over electoral processes. The future of this executive order will likely hinge on legal challenges and the willingness of states to comply with its directives.