Trump Administration Turns to Supreme Court to Revive Mail-Voting Restriction Order

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday to permit an executive order restricting mail-in voting, setting the stage for a legal confrontation as the president seeks expanded authority over electoral procedures ahead of the November midterm elections.

The Department of Justice submitted the emergency application to the justices following a federal appeals court’s Saturday decision to block key provisions of the order.

In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer characterized the lower court’s decision as “indefensible,” warning that it caused “serious irreparable harm to the federal government” and prohibited federal agencies from executing an executive order aimed at “promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November.”

The dispute originates from an executive order signed by Mr. Trump in late March, which attempted to impose limits on mail-in voting, leveraging federal oversight of the U.S. Postal Service to exert greater control over mail-in voting protocols.

The order mandated the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state citizen registries to aid in determining voter eligibility. It further instructed the Postal Service to utilize state-provided lists to assess whether voters could receive ballots by mail.

Over 20 Democratic attorneys general filed legal challenges against the order, contending that it violated multiple constitutional clauses, including the separation of powers, by granting the executive branch authority over functions traditionally regulated by Congress and the states.

The Supreme Court directed the challengers to respond to the government’s emergency application by Monday, August 3.

Mr. Trump has consistently attacked mail-in voting and pursued restrictions on it for years, propagating unfounded claims of widespread fraud.

To date, federal courts have repeatedly thwarted Mr. Trump’s attempts to curtail mail voting.

In late June, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking key parts of the executive order. Judge Indira Talwani of the federal district court in Massachusetts determined that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld her decision over the weekend.

The panel stated that enforcing the president’s order for the November midterm elections would “sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”

The judges emphasized that the Constitution grants authority over elections to Congress and the states, not the executive branch.

The Supreme Court has previously expressed skepticism regarding Mr. Trump’s mail-in voting restrictions. Late last month, the justices upheld a Mississippi statute allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days, effectively rejecting the administration’s bid to overturn the law.

In that landmark decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett aligned with the court’s three liberal justices, ruling that federal law does not mandate ballots be received by Election Day so long as they are cast on or before that date. Although the ruling specifically addressed Mississippi’s law, it also appeared to preserve comparable statutes in at least 18 other states and territories, including Nevada and California, that feature critical battleground congressional districts for the midterms.

Following the ruling, Mr. Trump took to social media, denouncing the decision as a “tremendous loss” and calling on Congress to enact legislation mandating stricter mail-in ballot restrictions and enhanced voter identification requirements.

Source link