\n<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 Democratic officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit Thursday against President Donald Trump\u2019s attempt to reshape elections across the U.S., calling it an unconstitutional invasion of states\u2019 clear authority to run their own elections.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit is the fourth against the executive order issued just a week ago. It seeks to block key aspects of it, including new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by Election Day.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe President has no power to do any of this,\u201d the state attorneys general wrote in court documents. \u201cThe Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s order said the U.S. has failed \u201cto enforce basic and necessary election protection.\u201d Election officials have said recent elections have been among the most secure in U.S. history. There has been no indication of any widespread fraud, including when Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.<\/p>\n
The order is the culmination of Trump\u2019s 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 \u201cmillions of people who voted illegally.\u201d In 2020, Trump blamed a \u201crigged\u201d election for his loss and falsely claimed widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s rare.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The order also requires states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, and puts states\u2019 federal funding at risk if election officials don\u2019t comply. Some states count ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.<\/p>\n
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 \u201ctimes, places and manner\u201d of how elections are run.<\/p>\n
Congress has the power to \u201cmake or alter\u201d election regulations, at least for federal office, but the Constitution doesn\u2019t mention any presidential authority over election administration.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are a democracy \u2014 not a monarchy \u2014 and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,\u201d said New York Attorney General Letitia James.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we\u2019re not going to stand for it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump\u2019s executive order was an attempt to impose \u201csweeping voting restrictions\u201d across the country and disenfranchise voters.<\/p>\n
The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada, a presidential battleground, defended their state\u2019s elections as fair, secure and transparent, and objected to the president\u2019s attempt to interfere in how they are run. Attorney General Aaron Ford praised Nevada\u2019s automatic systems for registering voters and distributing mail ballots.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile this order is on its face unconstitutional and illegal, it is also unnecessary,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
A request for comment sent to the White House was not immediately returned.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the Democratic attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.<\/p>\n
Other lawsuits filed over the order argue it could disenfranchise voters because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under penalty of perjury, in order to vote.<\/p>\n
Under the order, documents acceptable to prove citizenship would be a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver\u2019s license that \u201cindicates the applicant is a citizen,\u201d and a valid photo ID as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship.<\/p>\n
Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not have easy access to their birth certificates, about half don\u2019t have a U.S. passport, and married women would need multiple documents if they had changed their name. That was a complication for some women during recent town elections in New Hampshire, the first ones held under a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to register.<\/p>\n
Not all REAL ID-compliant driver\u2019s licenses designate U.S. citizenship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n