The latest executive order of US President Donald Trump on the elections faced a legal challenge by the Democratic Attorney General of 19 states, arguing that it is an unconstitutional effort to override the rights of the states. The case filed in the US district court at Massachusetts on Thursday, for the purpose of blocking the major provisions of the order, implements strict voting requirements to nationwide voting requirements.
The executive order issued only a week ago demanded a documentary certificate of citizenship while registering to vote for individuals and required all mail-in ballots to be obtained on the election day. These measures opposed the lawsuit, violated the constitutional rights of the states to regulate their own elections.
The suit stated that the Constitution allows states to determine its own election rules, making them a “time, location and methods” how elections are held.
“The President has no power to do so,” the Attorney General filed in his court. “Election EOs are unconstitutional, anti-duchratic and un -rican,” said the news agency AP.
Trump’s order claimed that he had failed to implement the country as to what he has called “basic and necessary election protection”. However, election officials across the country have repeatedly argued that recent elections have been the most safe in American history, with no evidence of widespread fraud.
The order is the latest step in Trump’s prolonged campaign against US election processes. In 2020, after Democrats who lost to Biden, Trump claimed that the election was “rigged” and accused the machine to manipulate voting machines.
Trump argued that his executive order would help prevent illegal voting by nonsuxity, showing many studies that such cases are highly rare. This order has been supported by Republican election officials in many states, claiming that it can help the voter deal with fraud and allow better access to federal data to maintain voter rolls.
However, critics warned that the order may give rise to comprehensive voter disintegration as many states may be counted in the current day-to-day mail-these ballot papers, and allow other voters to fix minor ballot errors.
The order threatened to cut federal funds for states that refuse to comply with the Democratic authorities argue that there is an overrach of the President’s power.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – not a monarchy – and this executive order grabbed a powerful power.”
Road Island Attorney General Peter Neronha also accused Trump of trying to take the Congress and the strong states in compliance.
“In a swoop, it is trying to reduce the presidential elections and bypass the Congress, and we are not going to stand for it,” he said.
Officers in Nevada, a major swing state, also pushed back, called their elections “fair, safe and transparent”. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the order as a comprehensive attempt to impose voting ban and suppress the voter voting.
Other cases filed against the order argued that millions of eligible voters could be unable to meet new documentation requirements. While citizens are already required for their position under the penalty of Perrys, Trump’s order limited the license of a real ID-non-discalcation driver who clearly limited citizenship, or with additional evidence of citizenship with a valid photo ID.
Democrats argued that these restrictions would unevenly affect Americans without easy access to birth certificate, as well as women who have changed their names after marriage. A similar requirement in New Hampshire recently voted in local elections for some women.
