PHOENIX — Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the president's latest executive order regarding elections.
The order, signed by Trump on Tuesday, would require people to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, and require all ballots be received by Election Day.
The order already faces lawsuits from the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Funder, along with the DNC, Democratic Governors Association, and Senate and House Democratic leadership, according to the Associated Press.
On Thursday, Mayes and Fontes held a news conference to announce Arizona is joining a coalition of 19 states in filing the suit over Executive Order No. 14248, calling it an unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the U.S.
Watch the full Mayes and Fontes news conference in the player below:
“This EO is an unacceptable and unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of states and the power of Congress by an out-of-control executive branch hellbent on destroying 250 years of precedent,” said Attorney General Mayes. “Clearly, Trump only supports state's rights when it suits him.”
Mayes argues the president has no constitutional power to rewrite State election laws by decree, nor does the president have the authority to modify the files Congress has created for elections.
Mayes and other attorneys general are asking the court to block the challenged provisions of the Elections Executive Order and declare them unconstitutional and void.
"If President Trump wanted to make laws then he should have run for congress where the U.S. Constitution says that work is done," added Secretary of State Fontes. "The Constitution also says elections belong to the states. If the President wants to reshape our elections, he must propose realistic bipartisan legislation in Congress instead of forcing states into unfunded mandates through unlawful executive orders.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserts that provisions of the Elections Executive Order will cause imminent and irreparable harm to the States if they are not enjoined. The challenged provisions include:
- Commanding "the head of each Federal voter registration executive department or agency (agency) under the National Voter Registration Act, 52 U.S.C. 20506(a)” to begin implementing aspects of the Executive Order. This aspect of the Elections Executive Order commandeers State agencies and their personnel, forcing States to participate in the President’s unlawful and unnecessary agenda.
- Forcing States to alter their ballot counting laws to exclude “absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day.” In Arizona, voted ballots must be received by 7pm on Election Day in order to be counted. However, this Elections Executive Order could impact the ability to cure ballots under Arizona law.
- Requiring military and overseas voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship and eligibility to vote in state elections. The Federal Post Card Application form is used by voters in the military or living abroad to register to vote in federal elections. Federal law unequivocally grants them the ability to register and cast a ballot “in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States” — there is no requirement that this form demand documentary proof of citizenship or proof of current eligibility to vote in a particular state.
- Threatening to withhold various streams of federal funding to the States for purported noncompliance with the challenged provisions. In so doing, the Elections Executive Order seeks to control Plaintiff States’ exercise of their sovereign powers through raw Executive domination, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and its underlying principles of federalism and the separation of powers.
By filing the lawsuit, Mayes joins the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about how U.S. elections are run. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” In 2020, Trump blamed a “rigged” election for his loss and falsely claimed widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.
Trump has argued his order secures the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it's rare.
It has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.
The order also requires states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, and puts states' federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Some states count ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.
Forcing states to change, the suit says, would violate the broad authority the Constitution gives states to set their own election rules. It says they decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.
Congress has the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but the Constitution doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said the Trump administration is requiring states to either comply with an unconstitutional order or lose congressionally approved funding, something he said the president has no authority to do.
“In one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we’re not going to stand for it,” he said.
The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada, a presidential battleground, defended their state's elections as fair, secure and transparent, and objected to the president's attempt to interfere in how they are run.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump's executive order was an attempt to impose “sweeping voting restrictions” across the country and disenfranchise voters.
