Instant Insight

30-Second Take

• Eighteen states have filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s recent executive order on voting, arguing it is unconstitutional and an attempt to seize control of elections.
• The order requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and restricts mail-in voting, which critics say could disenfranchise millions of voters.
• This lawsuit is one of several legal challenges to the executive order, with various civil rights and voting rights groups also taking action.

Quick Brief

2-Minute Digest

Essential Context

On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at overhauling the nation’s voting rules. The order mandates proof of citizenship for voter registration and imposes new restrictions on mail-in voting. This move has been met with fierce opposition from various states and civil rights organizations, who argue that the order is unconstitutional and would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

Core Players

• Trump – President of the United States
• California Attorney General Rob Bonta – Lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by 18 states
• League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) – One of the organizations suing over the executive order
• Campaign Legal Center (CLC) – Leading the lawsuit against the executive order
• Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – Independent agency targeted by the executive order

Key Numbers

• 18 – Number of states suing over the executive order
• 21 million – Americans who may be unable to access the required documentation for voter registration
• 48% – Percentage of Americans who possess an unexpired passport with their legal name
• 17 – Number of states whose laws on mail-in voting would be overridden by the executive order

Full Depth

Complete Coverage

The Catalyst

The lawsuit filed by 18 states, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, is the latest in a series of legal challenges to President Trump’s executive order. Bonta stated, “My fellow attorneys general and I are taking him to court because this Executive Order is nothing but a blatantly illegal power grab and an attempt to disenfranchise voters.”

This executive order has sparked widespread criticism for its potential to undermine the democratic process and disenfranchise various groups of voters.

Inside Forces

The executive order directs several federal agencies, including the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to implement changes that are beyond the president’s constitutional authority. The EAC, designed to be independent and bipartisan, is not subject to the president’s direct control. However, the order attempts to compel the EAC to modify the federal voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship.

This move is seen as an overreach of executive power, as the Constitution grants states the authority to regulate elections and Congress the power to set national voting standards.

Power Dynamics

The lawsuit highlights the significant power struggle between the executive branch and the states. Trump’s order is seen as an attempt to bypass the constitutional framework that gives states and Congress the authority over election rules. The attorneys general argue that the president lacks the constitutional or statutory authority to unilaterally dictate how elections are run.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber emphasized, “The progress this nation has made over the past 60 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act cannot be minimized and should not be erased.”

Outside Impact

The broader implications of this executive order are substantial. It could lead to the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters, particularly those who lack the necessary documentation, such as passports or REAL IDs. This includes military and overseas voters, who often rely on mail-in ballots that the order seeks to restrict.

The order also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply, which could further complicate election administration and potentially violate the Tenth Amendment.

Future Forces

The outcome of this lawsuit will have significant implications for the future of voting rights in the United States. If the courts rule in favor of the states, it would reaffirm the constitutional limits on the president’s authority over elections. Conversely, if the order is allowed to stand, it could set a precedent for future executive overreach in election regulation.

Other voting rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and various civil rights organizations, are also considering legal action against the executive order.

Data Points

• March 25, 2025: Date the executive order was issued
• April 3, 2025: Date the lawsuit was filed by 18 states
• 2016: Year in which the Brennan Center for Justice found only 30 suspected cases of non-citizen voting
• 2024: Year in which the Survey of the Performance of American Elections reported that only 48% of respondents possessed an unexpired passport with their legal name