Washington (AP) – Democratic leaders in 19 states, including the attorney general of Wisconsin, Josh Kaul, have put legal action against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape the elections through the United Statescalling it an unconstitutional invasion of the clear authority of the States to organize their own elections.
The trial is the fourth against the executive decree published only a week ago. He seeks to block the key aspects, including new requirements that people provide documentary evidence of citizenship when registering to vote and the request that all voting ballots are received on the day of the ballot.
“The president does not have the power to do all of this,” wrote the prosecutor general of the State in court documents. “The EO elections are unconstitutional, undemocratic and non -American.”
Trump’s order said the United States has failed “to apply the protection of basic and necessary” elections. ” Electoral officials said recent elections were among the safest in American history. There was no indication of generalized fraud, especially when Trump lost against Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
Order is the culmination of Trump’s long -standing complaints on how the American elections are managed. After his first victory in 2016, Trump falsely said that his total popular vote would have been much higher without “millions of people who voted illegally”. In 2020, Trump blamed a “rigged” election for his loss and falsely claimed generalized electoral fraud and handling of voting machines.
Trump argued that his order guarantees the vote against illegal voting by non-citizens, although several studies and investigations in the United States have shown that it is rare.
He has received praise from the main electoral officials in certain republican states who say that this could inhibit cases of electoral fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their electoral role.
The ordinance also requires that states exclude postal bulletins or correspondence voting bulletins received after election day and put in danger of federal funding for states if electoral officials do not comply. Some states include the ballots as long as they are hidden by post by the public election or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.
Forcing states to change, says the prosecution, would violate the broad authority that the Constitution gives to the States to establish their own electoral rules. He says that they decide “times, places and ways” of how the elections are executed.
Congress has the power to “do or modify” electoral regulations, at least for federal functions, but the Constitution does not mention any presidential authority on the administration of the elections.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this decree is an authoritarian takeover,” said the prosecutor general of New York Letitia James.
The prosecutor general of Rhode Island, Peter Neronha, said that the Trump administration forces states to comply with an unconstitutional order or to lose funding approved by the Congress, which he said that the president did not have the power to do.
“On the other hand, this president tries to undermine the elections and bypass the congress, and we are not going to defend it,” he said.
California’s attorney general Rob Bonta said that Trump’s decree was an attempt to impose “radical voting restrictions” across the country and deprive voters.
The Attorney General and Secretary of State of Nevada, a presidential battlefield, defended the elections of their state as just, secure and transparent, and opposed the president’s attempt to intervene in the way they are managed. The attorney general Aaron Ford praised the automatic systems of the Nevada to record voters and distribute ballots by mail.
“Although this order is on his unconstitutional and illegal face, it is not necessary either,” he said.
A request for comments sent to the White House was not immediately returned.
The trial was submitted to the Massachusetts District District Tribunal by the Arizona General Democratic Prosecutors, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersy, New Mexico, New York, New York, Wisconsin.
Other prosecution brought by the prescription argue that it could deprive voters because millions of Americans eligible for voting age do not have the easily available appropriate documents. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under pain of perjury, in order to vote.
Under the ordinance, the documents acceptable to prove citizenship would be an American passport, a real driving license in accordance with the ID which “indicates that the applicant is a citizen” and a valid photo identity document as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship.
Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not easily have access to their birth certificates, about half have no American passport and that married women would need several documents if they had changed their names. It was a complication for certain women during the recent city elections in New Hampshire, the first detainees under a new state law demanding proof of citizenship to register.
Not all driving licenses in accordance with identification designate American citizenship.
___
Cassidy reported to Atlanta. The writers of the Associated Press Tran Nguyen in Sacramento, California, Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire and Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
