By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This executive order mandates the Department of Homeland Security to create a list of eligible U.S. citizens for voting, a move that voting rights advocates argue could disenfranchise millions. Legal challenges are expected, potentially preventing its implementation before the midterm elections. The order also directs the attorney general to investigate and prosecute those issuing ballots to ineligible voters and to withhold federal funds from noncompliant states, though the Constitution generally vests election administration with the states.
Read the original article here
The White House has announced that President Trump intends to sign an executive order aimed at limiting mail-in voting. This move signals a significant federal effort to influence a process that is primarily managed at the state level, raising immediate questions about its legality and practical impact. The order, as described, would reportedly require the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration, to create a list of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state. Following this, the U.S. Postal Service would be instructed to only deliver mail-in ballots to individuals appearing on this compiled list. This is a notable departure from the current system, where state election authorities are typically responsible for distributing mail-in ballots.
The assertion of federal authority over election processes through an executive order is a point of considerable contention. Many are pointing out that U.S. presidents do not possess the power to unilaterally alter national election requirements or processes; such changes are generally within the purview of Congress. Consequently, there’s a strong sentiment that any such executive order would be illegal, unconstitutional, and ultimately invalid. The core of this argument rests on the foundational principle that elections are administered by individual states, and a presidential directive cannot override these established state-run systems.
This proposed executive order has sparked widespread speculation about the motivations behind it and its potential to create chaos. One theory suggests that the President might be hoping to provoke lawsuits. By issuing a directive that is widely considered problematic, the intention could be to draw the issue into the court system, potentially escalating it to the Supreme Court. The strategy, as some envision it, would involve a series of steps: issuing a questionable declaration, facing legal challenges, prolonging the litigation, and then, as elections approach while the suits are ongoing, claiming confusion about the legality of certain votes as a pretext to contest or invalidate election results.
The timing of this announcement, particularly the observation that the President himself recently voted by mail, has drawn considerable criticism. This perceived hypocrisy fuels the argument that the order is not about genuine election integrity but rather a politically motivated maneuver. The idea of a leader attempting to restrict a voting method he himself utilizes highlights what many see as a self-serving and contradictory approach, prompting comparisons to rules being applied differently to the leader versus the general populace.
Furthermore, the notion that the federal government, through an executive order, could dictate voting procedures to states is viewed as an overreach of presidential power. The President’s authority is generally understood to extend to the federal government, not to dictate the internal governance of sovereign states, especially concerning matters like election administration. The executive branch’s role is typically to enforce laws passed by the legislative branch, not to create new directives that circumvent the established legislative process or infringe upon state autonomy.
There is also concern that even if the executive order is legally invalid, it might still have an impact. The hope, some suggest, is that sympathetic Republican-controlled state governments might attempt to implement the order’s provisions into their state policies. This could create a patchwork of differing voting rules across the country, leading to confusion and potential disenfranchisement, particularly for voters in states that do not comply. The ultimate aim, in this view, could be to create a pretext for rejecting election results that do not favor the incumbent.
The reliance on the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of eligible voters also raises significant questions about its purpose and relevance to mail-in voting. The core function of this initiative seems disconnected from the practicalities of how mail-in ballots are handled, as election authorities, not the Postal Service, are the entities that determine ballot eligibility and issuance. This disconnect adds to the skepticism surrounding the order’s legitimacy and its stated goals.
In essence, the announcement of an executive order aimed at limiting mail-in voting has been met with widespread skepticism and criticism. The prevailing sentiment is that such an order is legally dubious, constitutionally questionable, and politically motivated. The focus remains on the fundamental principle that states control their own elections, and any federal attempt to unilaterally alter these processes is an overreach that is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny and serves to highlight existing political divisions surrounding voting rights and election integrity.