US Judge Denies Democrats’ Request to Block Trump’s Mail-In Voting Directive
A US judge declined to obstruct Donald Trump’s mail-in voting order, stating that the Democrats’ legal challenge was premature.
A US judge on Thursday refused to obstruct President Donald Trump’s executive order that tightens regulations on mail-in voting, presenting a challenge to the Democratic Party, which contended that the action could disenfranchise millions of voters in the lead-up to the November midterm elections.
The ruling arrives as Republicans and Democrats gear up for a fiercely competitive struggle for dominance in both chambers of the US Congress. Trump has consistently asserted, without providing evidence, that his loss in the 2020 election was due to extensive voter fraud and has frequently expressed disapproval of mail-in voting.
The executive order, signed by Trump on March 31, instructed his administration to create a list of confirmed US citizens eligible to vote in each state and to utilize federal data to assist state election officials in verifying voter eligibility.
The order mandated that the US Postal Service deliver ballots exclusively to voters listed on each state’s approved mail-in ballot roster and stipulated that states must retain election-related records for a duration of five years.
In denying a request for a preliminary injunction from plaintiffs, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, US District Judge Carl Nichols, based in Washington, determined that the challenge was premature, as federal agencies had not yet put the policy into effect.
“Since the Executive Order requires no action from Plaintiffs and no agency has taken steps under the Order that could negatively impact Plaintiffs, they have not experienced any harm at this time,” stated Nichols, who was appointed by Trump during his first term.
The judge noted that Democrats might return to court to pursue an injunction once federal agencies have taken definitive actions to implement the executive order.
Democrats contended that the order violated states’ constitutional power to oversee elections. They also warned that the order requiring agencies to use data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to make “state citizenship lists” could accidentally leave out legally registered voters because the data might be old or wrong.
The Justice Department, however, argued that the litigation was premature since no actual harm had yet taken place.
A coalition of states led by Democrats has filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Boston to challenge the executive order. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, will hear arguments in that case on June 2.
