The lawsuit denies Trump's election order as unconstitutional

President Donald Trump's executive order to restructure the country's electoral system faces major legal challenges. Two lawsuits filed Monday call the move unconstitutional and urge the court to block its enforcement.

The Campaign Law Center and the State Democracy Advocates Fund filed their first complaints in the Federal Court of D.C. Hours later, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was second to be submitted by top Democratic organizations and leaders.

At the heart of both cases are the electoral provisions of the constitution. It gives the nation, not the president, the power to hold elections and intervene in Congress with limited powers. The lawsuit argues that it is trying to grasp power that the Constitution does not allow.

Non-profit challenges

The first lawsuit comes from three nonprofit groups. The Federation's United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Family Initiative (SFI), and Arizona Students' Association (ASA). These groups claim that the March 25th executive order (officially titled “Maintaining and protecting the integrity of American elections” does the opposite of what it promises. Suit reads,

The order is a terrible overreach beyond the authority of the President in violation of constitutional and federal law, and represents an illegal intrusion into the realm of election policy-making that the Constitution reserves for Congress and the state.

The complaint alleges that the president is trying to direct election rules “by Executive Fiat.” It says that the plaintiffs are violating the separation of power.

Setting voting counting rules

One of the most contested portions of the executive order is Section 7, which directs the U.S. Attorney General to take action against states counting the number of mail-in votes received since Election Day. The complaint is

The state has broad discretion and flexibility under election and electoral provisions to establish a “time, place, and way” to hold federal elections.

Along with DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands, 18 states allow votes consumed by Election Day to arrive and then arrive and count. The Congress recognized these differences and took no action to negate them. The lawsuit argues,

There is no conflict between federal Election Day laws and state laws that allow votes to be effectively cast after Election Day.

The group does not allow the Attorney General to “force” the deadline for vote receipts, according to the group.

Command an independent institution

The executive order repeatedly directs the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), an agency created by Congress, to implement Trump's instructions. However, the EAC is independent and bipartisan. It operates under the law and can only act through formal rules approved by at least three of the four commissioners.

Trump's order tells the EAC:

Add a Citizenship Documentary Certificate (DPOC) to the National Voter Registration Form. The President's deadline for mail-in voting will be enforced. Refuses federal funds to states that do not comply.

“The President has no authority to grant EAC, independent bodies or any such directives,” the complaint argues.

However, these actions must meet requirements under the Document Reduction Act (PRA) through notification and comment rules. Even if the EAC wanted to comply with Trump's directives, it could not be legally possible without violating federal law and its own rules. In the lawsuit, orders cannot be implemented as they completely ignore these processes.

Citizenship Proof Requirements

At the heart of the order is the mandate of providing documentary proof of US citizenship for voters to register using federal forms. But this very requirement has already been discussed and rejected by Congress and blocked by the courts.

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) intentionally excludes DPOC. Instead, you only need signed proof based on a perjury penalty. Its design was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Tribal Council between Arizona and Arizona.

“NVRA functions as both the ceiling and the floor,” the complaint explains. This means that neither the President nor the EAC can add requirements that are not permitted by Congress.

The federal court repeatedly struck similar efforts by the state to impose DPOCs, reminiscent of the lawsuit. Trump's orders are now trying to do what those states couldn't do, but through Executive Fiat.

Block funds rather than non-compliance

Trump's orders also threaten to strip federal election funds from states that refuse to comply with his orders, including enforcing the DPOC and changing voting deadlines.

Section 4 directs the EAC to withhold funds from non-connected countries. However, under the American voting law (HAVA), the EAC must allocate funds according to a specific legal formula, rather than the White House preference.

None of the laws governing elections provide funding for terms regarding DPOC or election date voting deadlines. The plaintiffs warn that the order could deprive states, particularly populated nations such as California and New York, hurting millions of voters in the process.

Important accusations

The lawsuit outlines several important violations.

APA and PRA Violation: The order bypasses required mandatory rules, announcements and comment procedures under both the Management Procedure Act and the Document Reduction Act.

Violation of Expense Clause: The order imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal funding and attempts to force state actions without Congressional approval.

Illegal Redefinition of Voting Standards: Orders relating to state authorities under 52 USC §21081(a)(6) are infringing to define what is counted as a vote by attempting to impose national standards through an executive order.

Violation of UOCAVA protection. The order directs the Secretary of Defense to amend federal postal card applications used by military and international voters, and to request documentary proof of citizenship and ambiguous “credentials.” The lawsuit says this undermines the core of uniforms and civil absentee voting laws overseas.

Excessive enforcement: at every stage – commanding the EAC, DOJ and the Secretary of Defense – the President envisages the powers that the constitution and federal law places elsewhere.

Democrat lawsuit

Top Democrats filed a second lawsuit on the same day, accusing Trump of trying to lean the rules in his favor.

The lawsuit, filed by the ELIAS Law Group, represents the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), the Democratic Senate Election Committee (DSCC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and party leaders Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (DN.Y.). It reflects many claims in non-commercial cases, calling the order “unconstitutional and anti-democratic.”

The lawsuit covers several provisions.

Provides Doge access to sensitive voter data. It places new burdens on the military and overseas voters. EAC hijacking control. It was mailed by election day, but refused any votes received afterwards. It threatens to withhold federal funds from non-connected countries.

“None of these are legal,” the complaint states. The group emphasized that “only the state and the legislature have the power to regulate elections.”

The lawsuit urges courts to overthrow the order, disenfranchising voters and warning them that it will damage the integrity of elections across the country.