President Donald Trump is being accused of overstepping his constitutional authority by trying to force states to run elections according to federal voter‑eligibility and mail‑in rules, according to a major federal lawsuit filed by California and a coalition of states.
What the executive order does
- Trump’s latest elections‑focused order builds on Executive Order 14248 (“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”) from March 2025, which already sought to require documentary proof of citizenship and tighten mail‑in ballot rules.
- The new order directs agencies like DHS, Social Security, and the U.S. Postal Service to create and maintain federal “approved” voter‑eligibility lists, restrict mail‑in voting mainly to people on those lists, and impose strict ballot‑envelope and tracking requirements.
- It also threatens loss of federal funding and possible criminal or enforcement actions against states that do not comply.
Why the states say it’s unconstitutional
- The plaintiffs argue the Constitution gives states the primary power to run elections and gives Congress the authority to regulate federal elections, but gives the president no direct role in setting voter‑eligibility or mail‑in rules.
- The lawsuit claims the order violates separation of powers, the Elections and Electors Clauses, and the principle that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state election officials or force them to carry out federal directives.
- States warn the sudden changes would flip existing vote‑by‑mail procedures weeks before primaries and months before the 2026 midterms, causing confusion, chaos, and likely disenfranchisement.
What’s at stake and what’s happening now
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading a group of 23 state AGs and the governor of Pennsylvania, calls the order an “unlawful attempt to restrict voting” driven by Trump’s fear of losing the 2026 midterms, not credible fraud.
- Similar earlier challenges to EO 14248 have already seen federal judges block parts of the order on separation‑of‑powers grounds, signaling that courts may push back again on this new push.
In short, this case is about whether the president can, by executive order, force states to reshape their voting systems using federally‑controlled lists and stricter mail‑in rules—or whether that power remains with Congress and the states.
