Trump’s Election Order Sparks Legal Showdown: What’s at Stake

By José Niño

President Donald Trump’s first two months in office have been marked by a flurry of executive orders aimed at energizing the most zealous segments of his voter base.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

On March 25, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14248, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which proposes sweeping changes to the federal election process—a central concern for Trump supporters who have long demanded election integrity.

The order requires states to mandate proof of citizenship from individuals registering to vote in federal elections. It also instructs states to disqualify mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked by the deadline. Additionally, it grants the newly established Department of Government Efficiency—headed by tech guru Elon Musk—access to national voter registration data.

However, a coalition of Democratic lawmakers and organizations quickly pushed back. On March 31, 2025, the group filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs include Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They allege the executive order “usurps powers the Constitution explicitly assigns to states and Congress.”

The lawsuit hinges on the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) of the U.S. Constitution, which gives states the authority to regulate elections, subject to congressional oversight. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order violates this structure by allowing the executive branch to dictate voter registration requirements, mail ballot deadlines, and data-sharing protocols.

The filing states:

The framers deliberately excluded the presidency from election administration to prevent exactly this kind of partisan overreach.

The complaint further asserts that the president “lacks any constitutional or statutory authority to regulate the conduct of federal elections” and describes the order as an “unprecedented power grab” by the chief executive. Legal scholars cited in the complaint underscore that the founding fathers intentionally excluded the presidency from conducting election operations to guard against political interference.

A major point of contention is the order’s treatment of mail ballot deadlines. It targets laws in approximately 30 states that accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but received shortly after. Democratic opponents argue this provision “directly nullifies state legislative choices” and could disenfranchise voters—especially military personnel and rural residents—who rely on mail services. The lawsuit emphasizes that many of these deadlines were enacted through bipartisan consensus and upheld by state courts, making federal intervention “legally indefensible.”

Another sticking point is the proof-of-citizenship requirement on federal voter registration forms, which plaintiffs liken to a modern-day poll tax. The complaint argues this disproportionately affects naturalized citizens, low-income voters, and domestic violence survivors, who may not have immediate access to official documents.

It also alleges a violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which prohibits states from imposing “discriminatory and unnecessary barriers” to voter registration.

Trump’s order also faces at least three additional legal challenges, including suits filed by 19 Democratic state attorneys general and civil rights groups. Collectively, these lawsuits characterize the order as a direct threat to both voting access and states’ rights.

The Trump administration has defended the executive order, arguing that mail-in voting and non-citizen registration pose systemic threats to electoral integrity. “Proof of citizenship is a common-sense step; you need it to get a library card,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Supporters of the order contend that different rules across states confuse voters—particularly military families—and that standardization is long overdue. “A soldier in Texas should not face different deadlines than one in New York,” argued Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

For now, the order remains in effect, leaving election officials across the country in a state of uncertainty. “We’re stuck between federal threats and our own laws,” said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. “This chaos is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.”

As the legal battle intensifies, it highlights a growing national debate over election integrity measures—and whether they safeguard democracy or suppress participation. At its core, the case poses a fundamental question: Who gets to shape America’s electoral processes in an era of escalating partisanship? The case is Democratic National Committee et al. v. Trump et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00432 (D.D.C. 2025).

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and  Twitter. Get his e-book, The 10 Myths of Gun Control at josealbertonino.gumroad.com. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

(function() {
var zergnet = document.createElement(‘script’);
zergnet.type=”text/javascript”; zergnet.async = true;
zergnet.src = (document.location.protocol == “https:” ? “https:” : “http:”) + ‘//www.zergnet.com/zerg.js?id=88892’;
var znscr = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];
znscr.parentNode.insertBefore(zergnet, znscr);
})();