Washington, Oregon prevail in challenge to Trump election order
Monique Merrill
SEATTLE (CN) — President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing new federal voting rules through an executive order, a federal judge in Washington state determined Friday afternoon.
“This case is not about whether the states, Congress or the executive offer better or worse ways to run elections,” U.S. District Judge John Chun wrote in a 75-page order. “It is also not about whether the current laws governing American elections could benefit from updates or modifications.”
Rather, the case focuses specifically on Trump’s executive order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” and whether he had the authority to issue certain directives. The court largely found he did not. Oregon and Washington sued the Trump administration over the order in April.
Chun, a Joe Biden appointee, concluded the states succeeded in their separation-of-powers claims, including proof-of-citizenship rules, mail-in ballot requirements and funding conditions. He tossed the bulk of the remaining claims, finding the states either lacked standing or failed to state a cause of action.
“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only states and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief."
Oregon celebrated the ruling as well.
“The Trump administration attacked American elections with an illegal executive order,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said in a statement. “Today, we put a stop to that nonsense. This is a win for the Constitution and the American people. Presidents don’t get to rig elections. Period.”
The states argued that Trump lacks the authority to regulate or administer elections and that his attempt to add voter eligibility requirements, interfere with the certification of voting systems and create a national voter receipt deadline is unlawful.
Chun agreed.
Under one section of the order, Trump required that the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission require “documentary proof of United States citizenship” for voter registration. Under that rule, voters are required to present a passport, REAL ID or official military ID.
But Chun found that the Constitution does not authorize such changes.
“The Constitution assigns authority over federal election administration to the states, subject only to regulations prescribed by Congress,” Chun wrote, adding that the provision was not authorized by an act of Congress.
“The [National Voter Registration Act] makes clear that not all changes to the federal form are automatically authorized by Congress,” Chun wrote.
Under Trump’s executive order, the Elections Assistance Commission is directed to withhold funding from states that don’t adopt the proof-of-citizenship requirements. Chun agreed with Oregon and Washington that Trump exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds or ‘thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress,’” Chun wrote.
Another section of the order directed the Elections Assistance Commission to amend its guidelines to reject ballots in which a vote is stored in a barcode or QR code unless needed to accommodate voters with disabilities.
Chun concluded that the requirement “directs the [Elections Assistance Commission] to amend the guidelines to reach a particular outcome, in violation of the statutory process prescribed by Congress.”
The states also argued that Trump unlawfully created a ballot-receipt deadline for federal elections in defiance of the Constitution, which assigns states the authority to regulate the time, place and manner of elections unless limited by Congress.
“Section 7’s ballot-receipt deadline is also not authorized by an act of Congress,” Chun agreed.
The federal government argued that the term “election day” gave Trump room to interpret the deadline, but Chun rejected the argument. He also rejected the government’s argument that allowing absentee ballots to be received after Election Day is discriminatory, primarily due to the government’s incorrect belief that absentee voters have extra days to vote.
Likewise, Chun found that Trump cannot direct the attorney general to enforce the ballot-receipt deadline or direct the Elections Assistance Commission to condition funding based on states’ compliance with the deadline.
Chun granted Washington and Oregon’s motion for a permanent injunction, blocking the government from enforcing the challenged sections of the executive order against the two states.
While Chun blocked portions of Trump’s order, he noted that the Election Assistance Commission is not prevented from “independently, and lawfully,” making changes under its delegated authority.
Washington and Oregon aren’t the only states to challenge Trump’s order. A coalition of 19 states sued the Trump administration over the changes early last year. Top Democratic officials filed a similar lawsuit in the District of Columbia, though a federal judge granted relief only to their challenge to the proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson said, “President Trump cares deeply about the integrity of our elections and his executive order takes lawful actions to ensure election security. This is not the final say on the matter and the administration expects ultimate victory on the issue.”