- Three organizations sue to block citizenship proof requirements for voter registration
- Executive order restricts mail-in ballot deadlines despite state autonomy
- Lawsuit claims 0.0001% historic noncitizen voting rate negates policy justification
- Military voters face new documentation hurdles under revised UOCAVA rules
Advocacy groups launched a constitutional challenge Monday against President Trump's sweeping election administration order, marking the first major voting rights battle of his second term. The coalition argues the policy illegally bypasses Congressional authority while implementing restrictive measures unsupported by evidence of widespread fraud.
At issue is Section 4(b) of the order mandating documentary citizenship proof for federal voter registration. While supporters claim this prevents illegal voting, plaintiffs note only 30 suspected cases emerged from 23 million 2016 ballots analyzed. Arizona Students' Association members testified about difficulties obtaining passports or Real IDs, with 22% of local registrants lacking compliant documentation.
The policy's mail-in voting restrictions contradict established state practices, according to the filing. Seventeen states currently accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later, a system Congress has never challenged. Legal experts emphasize the Electors Clause grants states primary authority over voting procedures absent conflicting federal laws.
Notably, the order targets military voters through revised Federal Post Card Applications requiring citizenship proof. This conflicts with the 1986 UOCAVA law's simplified process designed for overseas service members. Veterans' groups warn the changes could disenfranchise 18% of active-duty personnel stationed abroad during elections.
Plaintiffs highlighted regional disparities in document access, with 34% of Latin American citizens in swing states lacking passports versus 12% nationally. The League of United Latin American Citizens forecasts 40% membership registration declines if the order stands. Analysts suggest the case may reach the Supreme Court by 2026.
