Most functioning democracies maintain their voter rolls through independent electoral commissions — bodies deliberately insulated from the executive branch. The United States, by contrast, runs elections through thousands of local jurisdictions under state oversight, a decentralized system born from constitutional design. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump attempted to reshape that system by presidential decree.

The executive order, signed March 31 at the White House, directs the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile and transmit to each state a list of individuals “confirmed to be United States citizens” who are eligible to vote in federal elections. It instructs the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to voters on state-specific approved lists, mandates unique tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes, and threatens to withhold federal funding from non-compliant states.

The legal problem is foundational. The Constitution’s Elections Clause grants Congress — not the president — the power to “make or alter” regulations for federal elections. The order invokes the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the federal government’s obligation to guarantee a “republican form of Government” to each state. But election law experts across the political spectrum say none of those statutes authorize what the order attempts.

“I don’t know how it can be challenged,” Trump told reporters at the signing, adding: “You may find a rogue judge.” He described the order as legally “foolproof.”

The lawsuits began within hours.

States push back

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes called the order “a disgusting overreach” and pledged to fight it in court. His state’s vote-by-mail system, he noted, was designed by Republicans and is now used by roughly 80 percent of voters. “It is just wrongheaded for a president of the United States to pretend like he can pick his own voters,” Fontes told the Associated Press. “That’s just not how America works.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows called the order “laughably unconstitutional.” Nevada’s Francisco Aguilar said it would “cripple local election officials” and “silence voters counting on casting a mail ballot.”

On Wednesday, the Democratic Party’s national leadership — including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — filed suit alongside the Democratic National Committee and the party’s campaign committees. The complaint argues the order violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments and “dramatically exceeds his highly limited constitutional and statutory authority.”

A pattern of escalation

This is Trump’s second major executive order targeting election administration. A March 2025 order imposing documentary proof-of-citizensity requirements and election-day ballot receipt deadlines has been largely blocked by federal courts. The Justice Department has spent months demanding voter registration lists from states, suing when officials refuse to hand them over. The FBI seized ballots from a Georgia county election office in January. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently appointed a “special attorney” with nationwide authority to investigate and prosecute federal election integrity cases.

Federal judges in three states have already dismissed Justice Department lawsuits seeking access to sensitive voter data, according to NPR. In one recent hearing, a DOJ official admitted the department plans to share collected voter data with DHS to run through the SAVE verification system.

UCLA election law expert Rick Hasen wrote that the new order is likely unconstitutional and, regardless, “virtually impossible to implement in time for November’s elections.”

The data problem

The order relies heavily on DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program — SAVE — to verify citizenship. The system has a documented history of errors. NPR has reported that US citizens have been inaccurately flagged by the database. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that few states collect full Social Security numbers during voter registration, limiting the system’s ability to conduct accurate bulk searches.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office defended SAVE’s utility while downplaying the scale of fraud. Spokesperson Robert Sinners said “the small number flagged as potential non-citizens cannot vote by mail or in person until they provide proof of citizenship,” adding that Georgia already verifies citizenship regardless of the order’s fate.

The actual incidence of mail voting fraud is vanishingly small. A 2025 Brookings Institution study found it occurred in 0.000043 percent of mail ballots cast — roughly four cases per 10 million.

The broader precedent

For observers of democratic erosion worldwide, the order fits a familiar pattern: an executive claiming extraordinary authority over electoral machinery, citing integrity concerns that the evidence does not substantiate, and daring courts to intervene. The question is not whether this order survives legal challenge — most experts believe it will not. It is whether the institutional damage accumulates with each attempt.

A previous executive order on elections sits partially enjoined. This one faces immediate legal headwinds. The legislative vehicle, the SAVE America Act, has cleared the House but is stalled in the Senate. Trump himself voted by mail in a Florida election last week.

The order is scheduled to take effect through agency rulemaking over the next 60 to 120 days. The courts will almost certainly have something to say about that timeline.

Sources