Judge weighs challenges to Trump order on mail voting limits

A federal judge in Washington acknowledged Thursday the tight timeline for deciding whether to pause President Donald Trump’s executive order, issued in late March, which seeks to establish a nationwide ‘state citizenship list’ and restrict mail voting to those on state voter rolls. The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate with states to verify voter eligibility and authorizes the attorney general to investigate and penalize non-compliant jurisdictions, including by withholding federal funds. Democratic leaders, the Democratic National Committee, civil rights groups, and advocacy organizations filed legal challenges, urging Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to intervene. They argue the order violates federal privacy laws, as Congress explicitly prohibited the creation of such a cross-referenced national database without authorization. Lalitha Madduri, attorney for the Democratic groups, stated that ‘there is no lawful way to compile the list’ as described in the executive order. During a two-hour hearing, Nichols expressed concern over the timing, noting that delaying until July—when the U.S. Postal Service was set to finalize the rule—would place the decision on the ‘cusp of election season.’ He questioned why the case couldn’t be addressed sooner, given the potential disruption to primaries and general elections. Danielle Lang, attorney for the civil rights groups, warned that waiting would ‘erode public confidence in elections,’ emphasizing the order’s design to create ‘chaos and confusion.’ Justice Department attorney Stephen Pezzi countered that the challengers had not demonstrated a clear legal violation, arguing the federal government cannot be held responsible for state-level actions that might improperly remove eligible voters. He described the debate as ‘shadowboxing over a hypothetical list that hasn’t been created yet,’ noting uncertainty over how DHS would compile the voter data. Nichols also pressed the challengers on how he could block a rulemaking process that had not yet begun, given the lack of concrete steps taken by the administration. The final rules, if implemented, would take effect amid a wave of primaries and general elections, leaving voters and election officials with only 60 days to adapt to new procedures for mail ballots. Lang argued that the American people deserve elections ‘governed by the rule of law, not by the whims of a president asserting power he doesn’t have.’ The judge’s decision could set a critical precedent for voter access and federal executive authority ahead of the midterms.