Posted on 11/01/2025 7:01:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Election integrity was a key element in President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign. In March of 2025, shortly after resuming office, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) intended to increase election security and assure election integrity in American elections. A key component of that EO was the requirement for voters to provide proof of citizenship, establishing that they are eligible to cast their vote in federal elections, before being allowed to cast a ballot.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable requirement, unless you're a Democrat.
A U.S. District judge has now overturned that provision of the president's order.
Donald Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
US district judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington DC, sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul US elections.
She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in US elections.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 4, states:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
There is no mention of responsibility or authority in Article II, describing the Executive Branch, over elections.
The ruling prohibits the US Election Assistance Commission from carrying out this portion of the EO:
The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the US Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.
As of this writing, the White House has not responded to this ruling, although it's a safe bet President Trump will have something to say about it in time.
Read More: Bottom Line: Without Honest Elections, There Can Be No Republic
Democrats Insist It Never Happens—So Why Did 2,700 Illegal Immigrants Appear on Texas Voter Rolls?
A White House fact sheet on the original EO states in part:
- This Order strengthens voter citizenship verification and bans foreign nationals from interfering in U.S. elections.
- The Election Assistance Commission will require documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms.
- Agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Social Security Administration and Department of State must provide states with access to Federal databases to verify eligibility and citizenship of individuals registering to vote.
- The Attorney General will prioritize prosecuting non-citizen voting and related crimes, including through use of DHS records and coordination with state attorneys general.
We might point out that Congress could act on this matter; the Constitution does clearly give them the authority to "make or alter such regulations."
It's likely that Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling will be appealed by the administration. Stay tuned.
Ignore and proceed just like the dems did.
How can an evil judge justify that people who are not American citizens would vote in American elections due to his ruling?
He is enabling the breaking of federal law.
Why not let dogs and cats vote with the owners signifying what the pets think?
Only human US citizens should be allowed to vote as the federal law specifies.
I want this judge to suffer.
“How can an evil judge justify that people who are not American citizens would vote in American elections due to his ruling?”
____________________________________________________________
Because the Constitution and our federal laws recognize that states hold the 10th Amendment authority to set their own laws and practices for administering elections.
We remain a federal republic, which means each state selects their representatives. Even the civil rights and voting rights acts didn’t specify how states were to conduct elections, only that discrimination against minorities - Blacks - was unconstitutional
Why do people always say he should ignore a Ruling?
He won’t, because that would be incredibly stupid
I don’t like it but the constitutional argument in the ruling seems reasonable.
Okay.
As to your tagline, can the late Bob Wills still be king after the millions who marched on No Kings Day?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoVNMa29lgg
I meant to say your screen name.
Activist judges suck. Disbar the morons.
Sort of a bad chess move on the part of the mini judge. If the higher courts erase her order, Trump’s national ID order is immediately in effect. And Trump has an extended win streak against mini judges.
The constitution also charges the president with the responsibility of ensuring fair and honest elections. Hardly fair or honest to allow foreign citizens to vote on our elections don’t you think. Further, I think the founders of our Republic would be horrified at the twisted reasoning used to justify the possibility of foreign nations controlling our elections.
Bob Willis is always quick to defend leftist scum from his high horse.
She’s not a “judge”. She’s a Trump/America hating Commie RAT skank.
mark
Have ICE and the guard a every polling place
That’s all correct, but it exposes the charade of the GOP. Even with majorities in the House, Senate, and presidency, the GOP has put virtually nothing into legislaiton—only executive orders that can be reversed on day one of a new president.
And for once, a USD judge is correct: Barring some sort of delegation from Congress, this isn’t a presidential power.
Note, of course, that repelling an invasion is, so Trump could and should have dealt with it by expelling all illegals.
Nevermind EOs. Senate Republicans could nuke the filibuster and pass an election integrity bill along with a long list of other reforms. Trump is right. Now is the time to crush Obama’s communist revolution.
Indeed, what is long overdue is an investigation of these black robed tyrants financials and computer histories
I understand the judge’s argument. But doesn’t is seem a bit rich having a constitutional ruling by a level of judge that isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution?
Shouldn’t this only apply to named litigants in this case, or at worst, just one district? You know…..if we are being technically correct.
EC
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.