President Donald Trump’s feud with the United States' electoral system escalated on March 25, when he signed an executive order overhauling election procedure–a choice that garnered extensive pushback in the following months. The order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” mandates that prospective voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship, that all mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, and that foreign nationals be barred from making donations to support American candidates.
Interestingly, despite this last restriction, Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign received heavy support from Russian donors, the very foreign nationals that this executive order prevents from contributing money. But while Trump’s order might seem illogical, behind the patriotic wording lies an ugly truth.
Trump’s attacks on election procedure have been slow but steady during his second term. In February, the Trump administration paused the work of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which combats cyberattacks targeting governmental infrastructure. CISA has since lost the majority of its top officials and has been unable to respond effectively to election cyberattacks. Trump also cut funding for the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), which protects the country’s election technology from cyberattacks. These measures, along with the most recent executive order, threaten election integrity across America.
In the United States, elections are relatively decentralized. Election procedure can vary state by state, particularly for local and statewide elections, but federal law also plays a role in all types of elections. For example, every state has its own voter ID rules, but constitutional amendments like the 15th and 19th Amendments dictate who has the right to vote. The federal government also has the power to override state rulings on election procedure should they be found unconstitutional.
Trump’s executive order would amend only federal election procedures, but since the federal government can supersede state and local election procedure, it’s possible that states like Oregon, which currently utilizes an exclusively mail-in voting system, would lose certain privileges and therefore sacrifice voter turnout.
Trump’s actions have earned him significant resistance, especially from Democrats. Elias Law Group, with support from powerhouses including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Governors Association and Hakeem Jeffries, filed a lawsuit against Trump in March. A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Hispanic Federation, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also introduced a motion for a preliminary injunction–or a temporary block–against the executive order. A federal court granted this injunction against the order, specifically its mandate that voters carry proof of citizenship.
An official at Elias Law Group shared, “This injunction stops an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters by adding illegal and unnecessary barriers to the voter registration process.”
Trump’s election procedure overhaul has the potential to disenfranchise eligible voters and wrest election control from the hands of states into those of the executive office. With the potential for more sweeping executive orders and Trump’s funding slashes to organizations like CISA and EI-ISAC, it’s impossible to predict how the election landscape will evolve under the Trump administration, but one thing is clear: it will look very, very different.