A Constitutional Clash Over Voting Rights

The irony was not lost on election officials and legal experts: last week, Donald Trump utilized a voting method he has repeatedly and publicly disparaged. Approximately one in three American voters chose to vote by mail in recent elections, a trend Trump now seeks to limit with his newly signed executive order. The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters, to be used by the U.S. Postal Service for ballots with tracking barcodes.

However, the order extends beyond mere verification, granting the Attorney General the authority to withhold federal funds from states deemed non-compliant. This move immediately drew condemnation, with many asserting its blatant unconstitutionality. The core of the dispute lies in Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution – often referred to as the Elections Clause – which explicitly grants states the power to determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, coordinating a legal response with other states, succinctly stated, “We’ll see the president in court.” Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, anticipates a lawsuit within days, emphasizing the constitutional principle that “the state has the responsibility to run elections.”

Legal scholars echo this sentiment. David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, and a former DOJ trial attorney, asserted, “Where the Constitution might need interpretation in some areas, on elections, it’s extraordinarily clear the President has zero power with regard to elections.” He further explained that the order violates existing federal law, including the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

This isn’t Trump’s first attempt to exert control over election procedures. A previous executive order in March 2025, requiring proof of citizenship on federal voting forms, was struck down by a federal judge citing the same constitutional concerns. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote, “Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes.”

The Department of Justice is also pursuing voter roll data from all 50 states, aiming to create a national voter roll – a move critics fear could lead to the wrongful purging of eligible voters. Courts have consistently sided with states refusing to release this sensitive information.

Meanwhile, the Trump-supported SAVE Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship and effectively end mail and online voter registration, remains stalled in the Senate due to a lack of Republican support to overcome a filibuster.

Did You Know?:

Despite claims of widespread fraud – which Trump reiterated, calling mail-in voting “legendary” and “horrible” – data consistently demonstrates its security. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which successfully sued to block Trump’s 2025 executive order, emphasizes that voting by mail is a “popular, trusted method of voting” utilized by voters across the political spectrum.

What impact will these ongoing efforts have on voter access and confidence in future elections? And how will states respond to the federal government’s attempts to override their constitutional authority?

Further bolstering the argument for state control, the ACLU sued the Administration over its 2025 executive order, ultimately securing a favorable ruling.

The Center for Election Innovation and Research provides valuable resources on election security and best practices: https://electioninnovation.org/

Frequently Asked Questions About Mail-In Voting and the Executive Order