Latest news with #Kollar-Kotelly
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity – a move that underscores how deeply divided the country remains over what "election integrity" really means.. Though the executive order Trump signed was titled, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," the Democratic National Party (DNC), which led a group of plaintiffs in challenging the order in federal court, argued that it was an attempt to encroach on elections and disenfranchise voters. In the end, both sides won out – sort of, and at least for now. Here's what to know about the case in question: Trump Asks Scotus To Strip Protected Status For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Venezuelan Migrants U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ultimately left in place three key parts of Trump's executive order, including a provision requiring states not to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, in a partial victory for the Trump administration. But she sided with Democratic plaintiffs in blocking, for now, both a new proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms and a provision directing election officials to verify the citizenship of would-be voters. Read On The Fox News App Unequivocally, yes. That's exactly the problem modern presidents face when trying to make lasting policy changes through executive orders – a tactic increasingly favored by both Democrats and Republicans. It's a risky way to govern for two reasons. The first is that these orders can just as easily be overturned by the next commander-in-chief (as has been on display under the last four administrations). They also risk being halted in federal courts, where U.S. judges are explicitly tasked with serving as a check on the president, and are free to pause or halt such orders from taking force, should they determine they are outside the scope of the executive branch's authorities. That also doesn't mean that district courts need to have the final say on the matter. Trump's Executive Order On Voting Blocked By Federal Judges Amid Flurry Of Legal Setbacks Kollar-Kotelly stressed last month that voter registration laws and the ability to regulate elections are set by Congress and by individual states, not the executive branch. Both states and Congress can pass laws so long as they do not "needlessly impose" an undue burden on voters under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the executive branch, which does not share in these abilities to make and pass election-related laws, is not entitled to the same standard of legal review, according to the judge. "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections," Kollar-Kotelly said in her ruling. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda The Trump administration is, of course, free to appeal the decision to higher courts, should it choose to do so. "President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in response to the ruling last month. But its next steps remain unclear. To date, the administration has not appealed the matter, and officials have not said definitively whether they plan to do article source: A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Fox News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity – a move that underscores how deeply divided the country remains over what "election integrity" really means.. Though the executive order Trump signed was titled, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," the Democratic National Party (DNC), which led a group of plaintiffs in challenging the order in federal court, argued that it was an attempt to encroach on elections and disenfranchise voters. In the end, both sides won out – sort of, and at least for now. Here's what to know about the case in question: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ultimately left in place three key parts of Trump's executive order, including a provision requiring states not to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, in a partial victory for the Trump administration. But she sided with Democratic plaintiffs in blocking, for now, both a new proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms and a provision directing election officials to verify the citizenship of would-be voters. Unequivocally, yes. That's exactly the problem modern presidents face when trying to make lasting policy changes through executive orders – a tactic increasingly favored by both Democrats and Republicans. It's a risky way to govern for two reasons. The first is that these orders can just as easily be overturned by the next commander-in-chief (as has been on display under the last four administrations). They also risk being halted in federal courts, where U.S. judges are explicitly tasked with serving as a check on the president, and are free to pause or halt such orders from taking force, should they determine they are outside the scope of the executive branch's authorities. That also doesn't mean that district courts need to have the final say on the matter. Kollar-Kotelly stressed last month that voter registration laws and the ability to regulate elections are set by Congress and by individual states, not the executive branch. Both states and Congress can pass laws so long as they do not "needlessly impose" an undue burden on voters under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the executive branch, which does not share in these abilities to make and pass election-related laws, is not entitled to the same standard of legal review, according to the judge. "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections," Kollar-Kotelly said in her ruling. The Trump administration is, of course, free to appeal the decision to higher courts, should it choose to do so. "President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in response to the ruling last month. But its next steps remain unclear. To date, the administration has not appealed the matter, and officials have not said definitively whether they plan to do so.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
No, a Judge Is Not Preventing Trump From Enforcing Election Law
Federal and state law have long prohibited noncitizens from voting in U.S. federal elections. Nonetheless, in a March 25 executive order seeking to tighten election security laws, President Donald Trump included a provision requiring that prospective voters show proof of citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections. On April 24, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly temporarily blocked the provision, ruling that the president likely 'lacks the authority' to unilaterally impose the nationwide requirement. Later that day, White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser Stephen Miller claimed that Kollar-Kotelly's ruling barred the Trump administration from enforcing laws that make it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. 'It is a CRIME for non-citizens to vote but a single federal judge says President Trump cannot enforce this law,' Miller tweeted. 'An act of pure sabotage against citizenry and democracy.' That is not what Kollar-Kotelly ruled. The president can use executive authority to enforce federal bans on noncitizen voting, but as Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion, that doesn't permit the president to issue new regulations—without congressional approval—dictating how states conduct elections. When asked to clarify Miller's tweet—and explain why he said the ruling prevents Trump from enforcing laws against noncitizen voting—Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, told The Dispatch Fact Check, 'President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship.' As an explainer from the Migration Policy Institute lays out, all states had banned noncitizens from voting by 1924, and Congress added penalties in 1996. Noncitizens face potential federal prison sentences just for registering to vote. Kollar-Kotelly's ruling did not stipulate that the president or his Justice Department 'cannot enforce this law,' as Miller claimed. Rather, her ruling merely paused a separate provision, requiring proof of documentary citizenship to vote, included in Trump's executive order. According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's executive order 'strengthens voter citizenship verification and bans foreign nationals from interfering in U.S. elections.' One provision of this order, Section 2(a), states that an independent, bipartisan agency—the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)—will oversee that states implement documentary proof of citizenship requirements. 'Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Election Assistance Commission shall take appropriate action to require, in its national mail voter registration form … documentary proof of United States citizenship.' Under what authority can the president make such a move? The White House cited two statutory laws: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help American Voters Act of 2002 (HAVA). NVRA, which took effect in 1995, established a uniform federal voter registration form for all 50 states. The legislation tasked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) with developing the federal form, created in part to avoid disparities among each state's voter registration process. In 2002, Congress through HAVA took that responsibility away from the FEC and transferred it to a new agency the legislation created, the EAC. For a change in the federal voter registration to be approved, three of the EAC's four commissioners would have to sign on. More than a dozen groups—10 nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations, plus four groups affiliated with the Democratic party—along with Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, sued the Trump administration on April 1 and argued the president overstepped the bounds of executive authority. Their core legal claim: neither NVRA or HAVA authorizes the president to require that the EAC implement documentary proof of citizenship qualifications, and the Constitution gives the president no authority to dictate state election processes. Kollar-Kotelly ruled in a 120-page opinion that 'this separation-of-powers argument is substantially likely to succeed on the merits,' and issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the documentary proof of citizenship requirements from taking effect until the court rules on the broader merits of the case. The Trump administration presented two primary arguments countering the legal challenge brought before them. For starters, the White House argued, the president's order didn't instruct or require the EAC to implement the documentary proof of citizenship—rather, it was a mere suggestion. In the administration's view, the EAC was free to adopt or reject that suggestion, making any legal challenge speculative and bound to fail on the merits. The administration also argued that the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the law, including the security of federal elections. Therefore, in creating documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements, Trump was fulfilling his constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Kollar-Kotelly found neither of the administration's arguments compelling. 'First, the President has no constitutional duty to prescribe the content of election regulations,' she ruled. 'Second, any restriction on the President's ability to set the content of election regulation does not impair his ability to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' To begin, she rejects the White House's premise that the executive order made no clear requirements, and that any changes were merely speculative. 'This account cannot be squared with the plain text of the Executive Order,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. 'In short, there is no mystery about what Section 2(a) purports to require or whether Section 2(a) purports to require it.' The second argument presented by the administration resembles Miller's assertion: the law stipulates that noncitizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the president has a duty to uphold that law, so Trump has 'plenary authority' to direct the EAC to 'enforce the law' by updating voter registration processes. Kollar-Kotelly rejected this argument for two reasons. The first is that the administration first presented this argument at oral hearings. Yet, unless there are 'exceptional circumstances,' arguments that are not included in legal briefs and not mentioned until oral arguments are 'forfeited.' 'The Court could end its analysis of this argument there,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. But, she explained, even ignoring that legal technicality, the administration's reasoning is still lacking. The president's authority to enforce the law does not vest him with lawmaking authority, she noted. In fact, when Congress criminalized noncitizen voting in federal elections, it specified how it expected the executive to enforce the law—through prosecution, not new laws. Trump 'has no constitutional duty to set regulations unless instructed to do so by Congress,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. Moreover, Congress did not create the EAC to be used as a law-enforcing tool available at the president's disposal. 'The President has no constitutional power over election regulation that would support this unilateral exercise of authority,' Kollar-Kotelly wrote. 'The Constitution vests that power in the States and Congress alone.' While it's true that Congress did authorize the EAC to oversee a uniform federal form for all 50 states to follow in NVRA and HAVA, neither piece of legislation extended such authority to the president. 'Critically, Congress has never assigned any responsibility for the content of the Federal Form to the President or to any other individual in the Executive Branch with the power to act unilaterally,' Kollar-Kotelly explained. 'The power to alter the Federal Form is—and always has been—delegated solely to a bipartisan, independent commission with a duty to make changes only 'in consultation with the chief election officers of the States.'' If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@ If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump election order despite overwhelming American support for voter ID
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked a portion of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity that is popular among Americans, according to a Gallup poll. The portion of the order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down included provisions related to requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Trump's Executive Order On Voting Blocked By Federal Judge Amid Flurry Of Legal Setbacks Less than two weeks before the 2024 election, Gallup found that 84% of U.S. adults were in favor of requiring voters to show identification and 83% supported requiring proof of citizenship when registering for the first time. When broken down by party, 67% of Democrats, 84% of Independents and 98% of Republicans were in favor of mandating voter ID. The party breakdown over proof of citizenship was similar, with 66% of Democrats, 84% of Independents and 96% of Republicans supporting the idea. Citizenship Voter Registration Bill Is 'Common Sense,' Gop Lawmaker Argues Read On The Fox News App Kollar-Kotelly, however, argued that Trump did not have the authority to issue such an order, as the Constitution delegates control of election regulations to Congress and states. "Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would affect many of the changes the President purports to order," Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her order. "No statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress's deliberative process by executive order." Earlier this month, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require states to obtain proof of citizenship for those registering to vote in a federal election. Additionally, the act mandates that all non-citizens be removed from voter rolls. The Senate still needs to pass the measure before it can reach Trump's desk. Click To Get The Fox News App Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who sponsored the bill in the House, wrote, "In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election. I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country." So far in 2025, five states have enacted voter ID requirements, and one has mandated proof of citizenship for registration, according to Voting Rights Lab. Additionally, 25 states are considering bills that would mandate proof of citizenship, while 40 are mulling legislation requiring voter article source: Judge blocks Trump election order despite overwhelming American support for voter ID
Fox News
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Judge blocks Trump election order despite overwhelming American support for voter ID
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked a portion of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity that is popular among Americans, according to a Gallup poll. The portion of the order that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down included provisions related to requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. Less than two weeks before the 2024 election, Gallup found that 84% of U.S. adults were in favor of requiring voters to show identification and 83% supported requiring proof of citizenship when registering for the first time. When broken down by party, 67% of Democrats, 84% of Independents and 98% of Republicans were in favor of mandating voter ID. The party breakdown over proof of citizenship was similar, with 66% of Democrats, 84% of Independents and 96% of Republicans supporting the idea. Kollar-Kotelly, however, argued that Trump did not have the authority to issue such an order, as the Constitution delegates control of election regulations to Congress and states. "Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would affect many of the changes the President purports to order," Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her order. "No statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress's deliberative process by executive order." Earlier this month, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require states to obtain proof of citizenship for those registering to vote in a federal election. Additionally, the act mandates that all non-citizens be removed from voter rolls. The Senate still needs to pass the measure before it can reach Trump's desk. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who sponsored the bill in the House, wrote, "In order to preserve this republic, we must uphold what it means to be able to vote in a U.S. election. I am grateful that my colleagues answered the call and passed the SAVE Act, as this serves as a critical first step to ensure that we maintain election integrity throughout our country." So far in 2025, five states have enacted voter ID requirements, and one has mandated proof of citizenship for registration, according to Voting Rights Lab. Additionally, 25 states are considering bills that would mandate proof of citizenship, while 40 are mulling legislation requiring voter ID.
