Latest news with #ElectionsClause
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court won't hear lawsuit seeking to roll back Michigan voting rights measures
U.S. Supreme Court | Susan J. Demas The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit filed by nearly a dozen Michigan Republican lawmakers seeking to roll back voting rights measures passed by voters in 2018 and 2022. The suit, filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, argued that because the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, found in Article I, Section 4, provides for state legislatures to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding federal elections, measures passed by citizen-led petition initiatives are unconstitutional as they infringed on the state Legislature's role within state election law. The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to take the case was the third, and now final, rejection after the lawsuit was initially dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Jane Beckering, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, in April 2024 for a lack of standing, a decision which was then affirmed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2024. The lawsuit was sponsored by Michigan Fair Elections and the Great Lakes Justice Center and named Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater as defendants. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Benson hailed the decision not to take up the case as a 'victory for the people of Michigan,' saying the U.S. Supreme Court had correctly upheld the right of Michigan voters to amend the state constitution. 'In recent years, voters in Michigan have overwhelmingly supported ballot initiatives to create a citizen-led independent redistricting process, to guarantee at least nine days of early voting for every statewide election, and to make voting more accessible for every eligible citizen. Today's action ensures that the will of the voters will stand on these and other issues important to the people of our state,' Benson said. Proposal 3 of 2018 and Proposal 2 of 2022 both passed with at least 60% of the vote and guaranteed the rights to same-day voter registration, nine days of early voting, absentee voting, among other rights. After voters approved the constitutional amendments, the Legislature passed legislation implementing the measures. The suit sought not only to halt the changes brought on by the voter-passed initiatives, but also prohibit the future use altogether of citizen-led petition initiatives when they pertain to state election law. 'We also have procedures in place at the state level to amend election law,' state Sen. Jonathan Lindsey (R-Coldwater), one of the 11 lawmakers who filed the suit, said at the time. 'However, these processes were violated in 2018 and 2022 when an alternative amendment process was used without regard to federal constitutional requirements. This lawsuit challenges recent attempts to subvert our constitutional process and will protect against such actions in the future.' The legal argument behind the lawsuit, known as the independent state legislature theory, was mostly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2023 when it ruled in Moore v Harper. In that case's 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that there were limits to state legislative power in such matters, effectively repudiating the claim that only state legislatures had the power to make election rules, thus providing state and federal courts, and by extension, state constitutions, a role in that process.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear MI citizen amendment proposal case
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case on whether or not citizen ballot proposals could amend the Michigan Constitution regulating federal elections, one previously dismissed by a lower court. In 2023, a group of state legislators filed a complaint in Lindsey v. Whitmer, claiming that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution by adopting amendments (Proposal 18-3 and ) regulating federal elections without the state legislature's participation. The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution reads: 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. These lawmakers called for a declaratory judgment that allowing a petition and ballot proposal to amend the Constitution regarding federal elections without the state legislature's approval or participation violated their constitutional rights. They also sought to have the 2018 and 2022 constitutional amendments rendered null and void, as they were adopted through the petition and ballot proposal process. In April 2024, a federal judge dismissed the complaint, saying the lawmakers did not have enough standing and that their complaints were too generalized, meaning that the court had '' under of the U.S. Constitution, which confines the authority of federal courts to only cases. Later that year, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, and, Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, one of the named defendants in the case, weighed in. 'The U.S. Supreme Court's action has rightly upheld the power of Michigan voters to amend the state constitution and preserves the important checks and balances in our democratic process,' said Benson. You can read the petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, which also contains background information on Lindsey v. Whitmer, below. 20250320172442430_24-PetitionDownload Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Reagan-Appointed Judge Blocks Key Part of Trump's Election Overhaul Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal judge on Thursday blocked major components of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive order seeking to overhaul U.S. election procedures, ruling that his administration likely overstepped constitutional boundaries. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by GOP icon former President Ronald Reagan and elevated under former President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction halting provisions of the March executive order that would have added a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the National Mail Voter Registration Form. The judge also froze efforts to require public assistance applicants to verify citizenship before accessing federal voter registration materials. Why It Matters Trump's order, signed on March 25, tasked the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) with implementing changes that, critics argued, would disenfranchise millions of voters. Voting rights organizations and Democratic groups immediately filed suit, arguing that the directive violated the Constitution's Elections Clause, which grants states—not the federal executive—the authority to regulate elections. What To Know The decision represents a fresh setback for Trump, who has argued that the requirement is necessary to restore public confidence in elections. In a 120-page ruling, the judge stated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the proof-of-citizenship requirement would inflict irreparable harm on their clients and run counter to the public interest. Meanwhile, the government offered "almost no defense of the President's order on the merits." "The President is free to express his views on the policies he believes should be considered," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. "But here, he has issued an 'Order' directing an independent commission to 'require' changes in areas tightly regulated by Congress." President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House on April 24 in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House on April 24 in Washington, D.C. Photo byThe judge also struck down a portion of Trump's executive order that would have required public assistance recipients to verify their citizenship before accessing the federal voter registration form. The plaintiffs in the case included the League of Women Voters, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Democratic National Committee. Trump's administration argued that no harm had occurred because the provisions had not been enforced. During an April 17 court hearing, Trump attorney Michael Gates said a preliminary injunction wasn't warranted because the order hadn't been implemented, according to the Associated Press (AP). The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division expressed disappointment with the ruling. "Few things are more sacred to a free society—or more essential to democracy—than the protection of its election systems," said Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights. But the judge allowed other aspects of Trump's sweeping executive order on elections to proceed for now, including a directive to tighten mail-in ballot deadlines nationwide. She also declined to block Trump's directive opening certain databases to Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which seeks to examine state voter rolls for noncitizens. The judge said the Democrats' objections were either premature or better suited for state-level litigation. What People Are Saying Roman Palomares, national president of LULAC, told the AP: "Our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately." What Happens Next Trump has long spoken out on his worries and grievances about voter fraud, most notably after he lost the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden, when he repeatedly claimed the Democrats stole it. Trump's legal team is likely to challenge the injunction in appellate court. If the appeals court rules differently, the blocked provisions could be temporarily reinstated.
National Post
24-04-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Trump's plan to require proof of citizenship to vote in U.S. elections thwarted by judge
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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content But she denied other requests from a group of Democratic plaintiffs, including refusing to block Trump's order to tighten mail ballot deadlines. Article content 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. Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Article content 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. Article content Michael Gates, counsel for the Trump administration, said in the hearing that 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.
Chicago Tribune
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Federal judge will hear arguments as groups try to block Trump's executive order on elections
NEW YORK — A federal judge on Thursday will hear arguments in three cases from national Democrats and voting rights groups that are challenging President Donald Trump's recent executive order on elections, which, among other changes, would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund and others are seeking to block Trump's sweeping overhaul of federal election processes, alleging that the changes he wants are unconstitutional. The Republican president's executive order says the U.S. has failed 'to enforce basic and necessary election protections' and calls on states to work with federal agencies to share voter lists and prosecute election crimes. It threatens to pull federal funding from states where election officials don't comply. It also aims to mandate major changes to election processes, including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form and requiring all mail ballots to be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day nationwide. The plaintiffs argue Trump's order is illegal because it 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. The plaintiffs also argue the order violates the Constitution, which says that states — not the president — get to decide the 'times, places and manner' of how elections are run. The Constitution's so-called Elections Clause also gives Congress the power to 'make or alter' election regulations, at least for federal office, but it doesn't mention any presidential authority over election administration. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., will consider the plaintiffs' pleas for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the order as the lawsuits play out. She instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss a range of topics, including whether the Election Assistance Commission can comply with Trump's demands while following the law and whether the plaintiffs have standing to raise each of their claims. Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department attorney and a White House adviser during President Joe Biden's administration, said the Constitution is clear that the president has very little authority to regulate federal elections. But he said he expects the hearing will include debate over whether these groups have standing to sue and whether it is the appropriate time to bring a lawsuit. 'This is a pretty easy case when it comes to the legal merits, but whether they get to the legal merits is not trivial,' he said. The hearing comes as other lawsuits against Trump's executive order are pending. Earlier this month, 19 Democratic attorneys general asked the court to reject Trump's executive order. The following day, Washington and Oregon, two states that hold all-mail elections, followed up with their own lawsuit against the order.
