A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to mandate documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, based in Washington, D.C., ruled on Friday in favor of Democratic and civil rights organizations that had challenged the Trump administration’s executive order concerning U.S. elections.
The judge determined that the directive requiring proof of citizenship represents an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers. This decision marks a setback for the administration and its supporters, who contended that such a requirement was essential to ensure only American citizens participate in U.S. elections.
In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly stated: “Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes.”
She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain."
Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.
The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.
In a statement, Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling "a clear victory for our democracy. President Trump's attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab."
A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.
While a top priority for Republicans, attempts to implement documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting have been fraught. The U.S. House passed a citizenship mandate last spring, which has stalled in the Senate, and several attempts to pass similar legislation in the states have proven equally difficult.
Such requirements have created problems and confusion for voters when they have taken effect at the state level. It presents particular hurdles for married women who have changed their name, since they might need to show birth certificates and marriage certificates as well as state IDs. Those complications arose earlier this year when a proof-of-citizenship requirement took effect for the first time during local elections in New Hampshire.
In Kansas, a proof-of-citizenship requirement that was in effect for three years created chaos before it was overturned in federal court. Some 30,000 otherwise eligible people were prevented from registering to vote.
Voting by noncitizens also has been shown to be rare.
The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump's order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.
Other lawsuits against Trump's election executive order are ongoing.
In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump's executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.
