Last month, a federal judge in Washington, DC blocked a key part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on election integrity. This underscores how deeply we divide the country in terms of what “election integrity” really means.
The title of the signing order for the executive order, which was signed, is entitled “Maintaining and Protecting the integrity of American Elections,” but the Democrats (DNC) have led a group of plaintiffs challenging the federal court order, arguing that it was an attempt to infringe elections and empowered voters.
In the end, both sides won – of sorts, and at least for now. Here’s what you need to know about the case in question:
Trump asks Scotus to strip him of his protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants
After the election, President Trump chose to dance at the US Fest in Arizona. (Rick Scuteri/AP)
Why did the judge block some of the orders?
US District Judge Colleen Collee Cotery ultimately concluded three key parts of Trump’s executive order, including a state-required clause that requires counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, in a partial victory for the Trump administration.
But for now, she has sided with Democrat plaintiffs in blocking both the new citizenship requirements on the federal voter registration form and the provisions that direct election officials to examine voters’ citizenship.
Voters are working on the polling station at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 in Simi Valley, California, at Election Day (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello)
Does she have the authority to do so?
Clearly, yes. That is exactly the problem modern presidents face when they try to make permanent policy changes through executive orders. This is a tactic that is increasingly preferred by both Democrats and Republicans.
It’s a dangerous way to govern for two reasons. The first is that these orders could be overturned just as easily by the next commander (as on display under the past four administrations).
They also risk halting or suspending such orders if a US judge risks halting in a federal court that is expressly held as a presidential check and finds it outside the scope of the authority of the enforcement department.
That also does not mean that the district courts need to have final say on this matter.
Trump’s presidential order on votes blocked by federal judges amid gusts of legal setback
The House of Representatives of the E. Barrett Prettyman US Court will be seen early in the morning in Washington, DC on December 10, 2024 (David Ake/Getty Images)
Kollar-Kotelly last month emphasized that voter registration laws and the ability to regulate elections are set by individual states rather than by legislative and administrative agencies.
Both states and Congress can pass laws as long as they cannot “unnecessarily impose” undue burdens on voters under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.
However, the judges say that administrative departments that do not share these capabilities to pass election-related laws and pass them are not entitled to legal review of the same standards.
“Our constitution entrusts Congress and the state with powers to regulate federal elections, not the president,” Koller Cottery said in her ruling.
Judge v Trump: The main court battle to stop the White House agenda is here
Next Steps
Of course, the Trump administration is free to appeal the decision to the High Court if it chooses to do so.
White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in response to last month’s ruling.
Click here to get the Fox News app
However, the next step remains unknown. Until now, the administration has not pleaded the issue, and authorities have not stated clearly whether they are planning to do so.
Breanne Deppisch is a national political reporter for Fox News Digital, covering the Trump administration, focusing on the Department of Justice, the FBI and other national news.
Source link
