Posted on 04/08/2025 9:53:14 AM PDT by Pete Dovgan
WASHINGTON (AP) — "Democratic officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape elections across the U.S., calling it an unconstitutional invasion of states’ clear authority to run their own elections.
Thursday’s lawsuit is the fourth against the executive order issued just a week ago. It seeks to block key aspects of it, including new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by Election Day."
“The President has no power to do any of this,” the state attorneys general wrote in court documents. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American.”.....
"The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the Democratic attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.".....
"Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not have easy access to their birth certificates, about half don’t have a U.S. passport, and married women would need multiple documents if they had changed their name."....
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Clearly, the DOGE has proven that illegal immigrants were granted Social Security numbers illegally by the last Administration. Further, we know that these numbers were used for them to Vote in many states. The Civil rights issue of our day isn't if you can vote, but will your vote matter or will voting irregularities (registering and allowing ineligible voters) drown out your vote in a sea of fraud.
Those states brought all this upon themselves for failing to root out elections corruption and cheating.
State vs Federal elections. BIG difference.
This would seem to be a very desperate move. A court precedent on this would be disastrous to the Democrats.
The Voting Rights Law of 1965 requires ID requirements that should cover citizenship requirements. In the US SC ruling referenced in Shelby County v. AG Holder, voting early was added, but also added were ID Requirements and requirements for counting votes........................... So all the House has to do is the same thing democrats did: amend the law to read all voting via written ballots and counting within 12 hours of an election. Or say 12 hours after polling places are closed...
The Voting Rights Law of 1965 requires ID requirements that should cover citizenship requirements. In the US SC ruling referenced in Shelby County v. AG Holder, voting early was added, but also added were ID Requirements and requirements for counting votes........................... So all the House has to do is the same thing democrats did: amend the law to read all voting via written ballots and counting within 12 hours of an election. Or say 12 hours after polling places are closed...
OH just for the Catholic whiners, that believe they are above reproach, deal with the reality ...
I know somebody that graduated from Notre Dame and they have NO problem in the assistance of stealing elections ...
Look at the Supremes ... majority of are Catholics ...
An EO can’t actually order state governments or state government employees to do anything.
I was thinking about this. It can’t order the states to do Voter ID, Citizenship requirements, or voting eligibility requirements, or verification. It can block Federal funds to states that don’t.
Then I considered that the ‘enforcement’ of any law in the US is ultimately based upon the executive. So, technically, Trump can issue an E.O. and enforce said E.O.
An EO isn't a law. It's just the President telling federal employees how to do their jobs. That's it, so it is quite literally impossible for a state gov. employee to "break" an EO.. Even for a federal employee who violates an EO, all you can do is fire them because an EO is not a criminal law.
What I assume is going on is that the EO instructs federal employees to withhold some kind of payments or assistance to states that don't follow certain procedures. The articles I've read just aren't sufficiently clear on that, probably because the writers don't understand the legal issue.
But trying to withhold funds that aren't directly relative to election can run into what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the 10th Amendment. That's the doctrine SCOTUS used to kill the part of Obamacare that tried to force states to expand Medicaid. And even those that are directly related to elections may have an issue if the funds aren't being withheld due to some congressional authority.
Whatever the answer/explanation is, it kind of sucks that the people writing about it don't know enough to include the details that actually are important.
Correct. Recall that the 1964 Civil Rights Act imposed federal supervision of elections in the south. Now blue states are rife with election fraud and require oversight.
Bingo!
Of course Texas could join the suit and reach a settlement with the FEC requiring all of the provisions to take place. Obama did this with impunity.
EC
But trying to withhold funds that aren’t directly relative to election can run into what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the 10th Amendment. That’s the doctrine SCOTUS used to kill the part of Obamacare that tried to force states to expand Medicaid. And even those that are directly related to elections may have an issue if the funds aren’t being withheld due to some congressional authority.
Please educate me here. I have witnessed POTUS withhold federal funds many times. They did withhold money from states that didn’t expand Medicaid for Obamacare (or didn’t grant it) because some states opted out because the cost was greater than funding. They have withheld infrastructure funding as well. The 10th Amendment grants states rights. I don’t see anything in it that gives them the right to federal money.
What Obamacare did initially was say that states would lose ALL Medicaid funding if they didn't agree to expand it to cover more people. SCOTUS struck that down, saying that penalizing states by depriving them of Medicaid funds that had nothing to do with the expansion violated the 10th Amendment. So, the result was that States could only lose whatever additional funds that were supposed to go to the expansion.
That's why threats that "states will lose every bit of federal funding if they don't agree to do "x" are just ludicrous. That's so far outside what is permissible that it is a slam-dunk loss of the Administration were to actually try and do that.
I mean, would we really want the rule to be different? Considering how large a percentage of federal taxes people in each state pay, to have the Feds - and think of the Dems being in power - able to cut off all> federal funds if states don't do exactly what the feds want on every issue would effectively destroy federalism.
I mean, would we really want the rule to be different? Considering how large a percentage of federal taxes people in each state pay, to have the Feds - and think of the Dems being in power - able to cut off all> federal funds if states don’t do exactly what the feds want on every issue would effectively destroy federalism.
Yes and no. The States have been left with few powers to self regulate and Federalism has become problematic. I see your point, and thank you for explaining it.
The EO issue should be limited to Executive Branch employees, but with Federalism, that’s almost all of government ( with NGO’s it’s enourmous). The States lost power after the Civil War. Congress abdication of its powers started with Wilson and accelerated with FDR. Now we have a POTUS with powers never intended, and a Judicial branch that overreaches for politics. Obama and Biden have exposed the dangers of loss of balance in government and abdication of duties by Congress.
Can the POTUS deny funding to states who won’t follow the laws and enforce the Constitution? I say yes, as this seems to be a pattern since the civil war. However, if POTUS can issue EO’s and deny funding to states, that’s a bit to close to ‘King’.
When I think it logically, this issue explains the fear and irrational behavior from the Democrats. Obama and Biden both used the executive branch against political enemies using EO’s as well as ‘NGO’ money. Those ‘Kings’ robbed the treasury to pay off unneeded government workers (work welfare), funnel trillions into NGO’s that undermined rule of law and the Constitution . The fear a new “King’ doing Karma back to them. They fear that so much that they now accept political murder as ‘justified’, to stop the new ‘King’ from resetting society and the economy. It’s all a result of abdication by Congress and usurpation of States rights, Federalism gone wild.
Well, you may say yes, but the Supreme Court consistently has said "no". States cannot take actions that violate law, but they also cannot be forced to enforce federal law or enact/support federally-administered programs.
An easy example: states don't have to participate in school lunch programs. If they don't, the feds can deny them the money that was supposed to go to those programs. But the feds could not deny those states Medicaid funds as a way of forcing them to adopt the school lunch programs. That's been consistent.
Another example is that the federal government cannot require state law enforcement to enforce federal laws. So the feds could not order state police to conduct searches for privately-owned guns. The flip side of that is that they also can’t order state police to conduct searches for illegals. Two sides of the same legal coin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.