In a win for voting rights, a federal judge Thursday halted key parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping anti-voting executive order, delivering a blow to the president’s plan to radically change elections and potentially disenfranchise millions of voters.

View in browser ([link removed] )

Header-330x100_OTD ([link removed] )

Friday, April 25

THIS WEEK

- Federal judge blocks parts of Trump’s anti-voting executive order

- Key wins for democracy in North Carolina

- SCOTUS could get chance to disenfranchise voters whose ballots arrive after Election Day

TRUMP ACCOUNTABILITY

Federal judge blocks parts of Trump’s anti-voting executive order

In a win for voting rights, a federal judge Thursday halted ([link removed] ) key parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping ([link removed] ) anti-voting executive order, delivering a blow to the president’s plan to radically change elections and potentially disenfranchise millions of voters.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit ([link removed] ) brought by the Democratic Party and pro-voting groups challenging Trump’s order as an unprecedented assault on states’ constitutional authority to run their own elections.

In granting the groups’ request for a preliminary injunction against several parts of the order, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly — appointed by former President Bill Clinton — wrote ([link removed] ) that “our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections.”

Among its many changes, Trump’s order directed ([link removed] ) the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — an independent bipartisan agency — to change the federal voter registration form to require eligible voters to show proof of citizenship.

The requirement would make it much harder for millions of voters who lack easy access to citizenship documents to use the National Mail Voter Registration Form, and could force states to rapidly shift their registration procedures. If states don’t or can’t comply, Trump’s order directs the EAC to punish them by withholding federal funding.

Kollar-Kotelly said in her order that EAC commissioners and other senior commission officials are barred from taking steps to add a proof of citizenship requirement to the form — and noted that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that a citizenship requirement to vote is unconstitutional.

“The President is free to state his views about what policies he believes that Congress, the EAC, or other federal agencies should consider or adopt,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her order. “But in this case, the President has done much more than state his views: He has issued an ‘Order’ directing that an independent commission ‘shall’ act to ‘require’ changes to an important document, the contents of which Congress has tightly regulated. That command exceeds the President’s authority.”

But Kollar-Kotelly didn’t block every provision in Trump’s order. She denied a request to halt a provision directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary action” against any states that count absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day and for the EAC to withhold federal funding from states that count votes they received after Election Day.

She said that the challenges to those provisions were premature or should be brought by states. We should get some ruling on those provisions soon: Democratic attorneys general in 19 states already challenged ([link removed] ) the mail voting provisions in their own lawsuit against Trump’s order. Learn more about what provisions of Trump’s anti-voting executive order are blocked here. ([link removed] )

NORTH CAROLINA

Key wins for democracy in North Carolina

Though we’re no closer to the certification of North Carolina’s 2024 Supreme Court race, there was a positive update this week in the ongoing effort to stop Republican Jefferson Griffin from getting the courts to overturn the results.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals voted ([link removed] ) Tuesday 2-1 to order the state not to mail any notices to the roughly 1,400 voters whose ballots are included in the state’s cure process while litigation over Democrat Allison Riggs’ narrow victory continues in federal court.

The panel’s order came after Riggs’ campaign had asked the court to put the 30-day cure process on hold. North Carolina state courts ruled ([link removed] ) earlier this month that the ballots at issue needed to be cured by voters to avoid being rejected — a move that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. Since then, the state has filed ([link removed] ) court documents putting the number of ballots facing legitimate challenges at a far lower level, saying many of Griffin’s challenges missed a key deadline.

While this latest order is a win for Riggs, the fight likely isn’t coming to a conclusion any time soon, experts say.

“The trial court will decide if Justice Riggs has a good constitutional case on the merits,” the election law scholar Rick Hasen wrote ([link removed] ) on his blog. “Whoever loses that will likely appeal to the Fourth Circuit (likely before a different panel, if today’s order was from a motion’s panel), with the case potentially ending up at the Supreme Court. I expect things will continue to be expedited, but it will take months more to fully resolve.”

It wasn’t the only good news to come out of the Tar Heel State this week. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel blocked ([link removed] ) a Republican scheme to gain power over the state’s election board — the agency charged with running elections and enforcing campaign finance laws.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Gov. Josh Stein (D) against the state’s Republican legislative leaders over a power-grab law the GOP passed last year when they had a veto-proof supermajority. The measure removed the governor’s power to appoint members to the state board of elections, instead granting it to the state’s Republican auditor.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has five board members — with a current makeup of three Democrats to two Republicans. The current system allows the party that holds the governor’s office to appoint all five state board members. But the GOP law would have required all members to be appointed by the state auditor. The law also transferred power to appoint the chairs of all 100 county election boards from the governor to the auditor.

In their 2-1 ruling, the panel of judges determined that the law violated the state’s constitution.

“The Constitution prevents the legislature from unreasonably disturbing the vesting of ‘the executive power’ in the governor or the governor’s obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed,” Superior Court Judges Edwin Wilson and Lori Hamilton wrote for the majority.

“[A] NC three judge panel just affirmed the Governor’s longstanding power to make appointments to the State Board of Elections, declaring the legislature’s power grab unconstitutional,” Stein said ([link removed] ) of the ruling on X. “The North Carolina Constitution puts the Governor in charge of executing the law. That’s what the voters elected me to do, so that’s what I’ll do.” Learn more about the state GOP’s scheme to wrest control of the state elections board here. ([link removed] )

MISSISSIPPI

SCOTUS could get chance to disenfranchise voters whose ballots arrive after Election Day

There’s been an interesting development in the ongoing Republican challenge to Mississippi’s ballot receipt deadline law that could have major national implications: Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson (R) appears poised ([link removed] ) to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the state’s ballot receipt deadline violates federal law.

Should the nation’s highest court strike down Mississippi’s law, it would likely mean a nationwide ban on states accepting ballots that arrive after Election Day, potentially disenfranchising a large number of voters across the country.

No petition has yet been filed with the Supreme Court. But a federal court paused ([link removed] ) proceedings this week in the lawsuit ([link removed] ) and wrote that the case will remain paused because Mississippi plans to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.

Under Mississippi law, all mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day are counted, so long as they are received within five business days of the election. But in January 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Mississippi Republican Party and several voters sued to overturn the law, arguing that the five-day deadline “effectively extends Mississippi’s federal election past the Election Day established by Congress” and results in “valid ballots” being “diluted by untimely, invalid ballots.”

In their lawsuit, the RNC alleged ([link removed] ) that Mississippi’s mail-ballot receipt deadline violates the First and 14th Amendments, as well as federal law, which they argued sets “one specific day as the uniform, national Election Day for federal office.” The plaintiffs asked the court to strike down the law so that any mail-in ballots received after Election Day will be tossed out.

In July, a district court upheld Mississippi’s deadline, but the RNC appealed the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision in October, declaring that Mississippi’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline violates federal law. The ruling didn’t apply to the 2024 election because the 5th Circuit sent the case back to trial court to determine how to implement it.

Currently 17 states, along with Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., count mail-in ballots ([link removed] ) if they’re postmarked on or before Election Day but received after. California, Texas, Ohio, and Nevada are among that group.

Among the many provisions in Trump’s executive order targeting voting and elections is a threat to withhold funding from states that accept ballots that arrive after Election Day. Though a federal judge didn’t block that provision in her ruling, the issue is still pending in a different lawsuit filed ([link removed] ) by Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, arguing that it violates the Constitution.

But should SCOTUS rule that Mississippi’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline violates federal law, it would achieve that particular goal of Trump’s order, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters. Learn more about the lawsuit here. ([link removed] )

OPINION

Lower Courts Are Saving The Rule of Law — Now the GOP Wants to Neuter Them

Screenshot 2025-04-24 at 4.02.58 PM ([link removed] )

Lower courts are playing a crucial role in responding to the near-daily injustices from the Trump administration. Dozens of judges across the country appointed by many different presidents have ruled against Trump’s unlawful actions.

“But federal district court judges are barely keeping up with the tide of illegal orders,” writes Democracy Docket contributor and Alliance for Justice interim co-president Keith Thirion. “And now, both the conservative-majority Supreme Court and Republican lawmakers in Congress seem determined to slow them down by interfering with their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.” Read more here. ([link removed] )

NEW VIDEO

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Elections Executive Order

A U.S. judge Thursday blocked federal agencies from carrying out key parts of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order on elections. Marc Elias and Paige Moskowitz explain. Watch on YouTube here. ([link removed] )

What We’re Doing

News broke this week that Elon Musk plans to step back in his role destroying the federal workforce through the Department of Government Efficiency, in order to help Tesla bounce back after it reported a massive earnings plunge. The news couldn’t have been more timely for Senior Reporter Matt Cohen, who just cracked open Hubris Maximus: The Shattering of Elon Musk ([link removed] ) , a new in-depth look from Washington Post reporter Faiz Siddiqui at how Musk became his own worst enemy.

Facebook ([link removed] )

X ([link removed] )

Instagram ([link removed] )

Bluesky_Logo-grey (2) ([link removed] )

YouTube ([link removed] )

Website ([link removed] )

TikTok ([link removed] )

This is one of our free weekly newsletters. If you were forwarded this email, you can subscribe to our newsletters here ([link removed] ) .

Unsubscribe ([link removed] ) | Manage Preferences ([link removed] )

Democracy Docket, LLC

250 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 400

Washington, D.C., 20009