A fresh legal challenge was launched on Monday night when nearly all wings of the Democratic Party came together to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration.
They argued that a recent executive order issued by the president, which seeks to enforce proof of citizenship and other changes to voting procedures, goes against the Constitution.
RelatedPosts
Spanning 70 pages, the suit was filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., and it accuses the president of going far beyond his lawful powers in an attempt to unfairly shape election conditions to benefit himself and weaken his political opponents. President Trump and several of his officials were listed as defendants in the case.
According to the lawsuit, the executive order seems to reflect Mr. Trump’s personal beliefs, doubts about the electoral process, and refusal to accept election outcomes. It states clearly that he lacks any legal right to make such wide-reaching changes to voting laws.
The argument in the lawsuit rests strongly on the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which places responsibility for election rules in the hands of individual states. That part of the Constitution states that it is the states that choose how, when, and where elections happen.
Congress also has the power to pass laws related to federal elections, but the president is not given that role. As Democrats continue to work out the best way to respond to the Trump administration’s strong use of executive authority, this legal action is the first instance where nearly every part of the party is responding together, sending a united message.
The legal effort also shows that Democrats still treat voting rights as a central issue that defines their identity. It remains one of their main tools as they try to win back support before the 2026 midterm elections.
Just last month, they took legal action over the administration’s attempt to gain influence over the Federal Election Commission, and earlier, they joined another lawsuit to oppose Georgia’s changes to voting laws.
Executive Order Sparks Tension Over Citizenship Rules and Mail-In Ballots
Mr. Trump’s executive order, signed just last week, demands that voters provide proof of citizenship before they can register for federal elections. It also proposes a nationwide cut-off for mail-in ballots by threatening to withhold federal funds from any state that accepts late-arriving ballots, even if those ballots were postmarked before Election Day.
At present, 17 states accept and count some ballots that come in after Election Day. The order also aims to allow federal agencies, such as the Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk’s team, to access state voter registration lists to confirm whether they align with federal guidelines.
Responding to the lawsuit, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, issued a statement defending the president. He said that the Trump administration is trying to protect elections by promoting fairness, honesty, and transparency in how votes are cast.
According to Mr. Fields, Democrats are showing disregard for the Constitution with what he called extreme objections to the president’s efforts. He described the executive order as a common-sense move meant to ensure that only American citizens vote in federal elections.
The order also gives the Elections Assistance Commission new duties by asking the agency to enforce the citizenship proof rule. This agency was set up by Congress in 2002 to support election officials with guidance and resources.
But the lawsuit objects to this part as well, arguing that Congress meant for the commission to operate independently. According to the plaintiffs, the president’s order undermines that independence and violates the design that Congress originally put in place.
Concerns Rise About Voter Access and Ballot Deadlines
The lawsuit points to the risk that the order could prevent millions of people from casting their vote. Based on a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Maryland, roughly 21.3 million people across the country do not have documents on hand that prove their citizenship.
Also, many ballots that are mailed before Election Day still arrive late due to postal delays. In Washington State, for example, more than 250,000 ballots were postmarked on time in the 2024 presidential election but arrived after the official deadline, based on state election data.
Addressing the part of the order that sets a deadline for receiving ballots, the lawsuit argues that Congress has made it clear over the years that such deadlines are matters for each state to decide. The argument is supported by the view of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated by Trump.
He wrote that allowing ballots mailed by Election Day to arrive later is a valid decision left to state governments. Another point raised in the case is the danger of many lawful voters being shut out of the election.
The suit claims that the conditions in the executive order will lead to lawful citizens being excluded from voting. It argues that the restrictions do not support the country’s general welfare and go against the idea of a representative democracy.
Democratic Leaders Call Order an Illegal Power Grab
The Democratic National Committee joined hands with other powerful party groups to bring the case. Their allies include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Governors Association.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are also part of the legal challenge. In a detailed memo announcing the suit, these leaders released a joint statement criticizing the president’s actions.
They described Mr. Trump’s order as an illegal attempt to take control over state-run elections. According to the statement, the order attacks mail-in voting, grants access to voter records to an outside team led by Elon Musk, and limits states from managing their own election procedures.
They also accused Trump and his administration of using the order to justify false claims about election fraud. According to their statement, the goal is to create reasons to reject legitimate votes and refuse to accept election outcomes that do not go their way.
