A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from immediately enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form.
President Donald Trump had called for that and other sweeping changes to U.S. elections in an executive order signed in March, arguing the U.S. “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections” that exist in other countries.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with voting rights groups and Democrats to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the citizenship requirement from moving forward while the lawsuit plays out.
She also blocked part of the Republican president’s executive order requiring public assistance enrollees to have their citizenship assessed before getting access to the federal voter registration form.
But she denied other requests from a group of Democratic plaintiffs, including refusing to block Trump’s order to tighten mail ballot deadlines.
Also denied in the order was the Democrats’ request to block Trump’s call for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter lists alongside immigration databases.
The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund and others had sued to block Trump’s order, calling it unconstitutional. They argued it violates the Constitution’s so-called Elections Clause, which gives states, not the president, the authority to determine how elections are run.
The plaintiffs also argued that Trump’s order asserts power that he does not have over an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter registration form.
During an April 17 hearing, attorneys for the plaintiffs had argued that requiring proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form would complicate their clients’ voter registration drives at grocery stores and other public places.
Aria Branch, counsel for the Democrats, also argued the executive order’s effort to tighten mail ballot deadlines would irreparably harm her clients by forcing them to reallocate resources to help voters navigate the changes.
“That’s time, money and organizational resources and strategy that can’t be recouped,” she said.
Michael Gates, counsel for the Trump administration, said in the hearing a preliminary injunction wasn’t warranted because the order hadn’t been implemented and a citizenship requirement would not be on the federal voter registration form for many months.
The parties in the case didn’t immediately comment on the judge’s Thursday order.
The decision comes as state and local election officials from across the country are meeting to consider the implications of Trump’s executive order on their work.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board, which was holding a public hearing in North Carolina on Thursday, is a bipartisan advisory group of election officials from every state that meets annually.
Meanwhile, other lawsuits against Trump’s order are still pending.
In early April, 19 Democratic attorneys general asked the court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, which both hold all-mail elections, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.
The U.S. differs from many other countries in that it does not hold national elections run by the federal government. Instead, elections are decentralized — overseen by the states and run by thousands of local jurisdictions.
