Trump urges Top Court to let order stand
Broad changes to mail-in voting would include list of eligible voters
Trending
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for an executive order from President Donald Trump that could dramatically change mail-in voting ahead of November's midterm elections.
The Justice Department asked the justices to halt for now lower court decisions blocking the sweeping changes in nearly half the country.
The request comes shortly after Trump delivered a primetime address elevating his yearslong push to raise doubts about the legitimacy of elections, and could be one of several voting-related challenges before the court ahead of the high-stakes midterm contest.
Trump ordered the government in March to create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.
Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, not the president. Their attorneys have said Trump's proposed changes are ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.
A judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order for the plaintiff states, and a divided 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel left her ruling in place over the weekend.
The executive order calls for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to send state officials federal citizenship lists to determine eligible voters. It tells the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on the lists.
The order also calls for ballots to have secure envelopes with unique barcodes for tracking. Federal funding could be withheld from states and localities that don't comply.
The appeal argues that Trump's order lays out "general policy guidance" and doesn't directly dictate how states run their elections. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to freeze the judge's order as lawsuits play out, calling it indefensible.
"And the injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful," Sauer wrote.
He urged the high court to move quickly, arguing that any new policies would have to be in place as soon as August to be effective for the November elections. A response to the appeal is due Aug. 3.