Judge Halts Election Overhaul 04/25 07:00

   A judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from immediately 
enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, including adding a 
proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form.

   NEW YORK (AP) -- A judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from 
immediately enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, 
including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter 
registration form.

   The decision is a setback for President Donald Trump, who has argued the 
requirement is needed to restore public confidence in elections. But the judge 
allowed other parts of Trump's sweeping executive order on U.S. elections to go 
forward for now, including a directive to tighten mail ballot deadlines around 
the country.

   Trump's March executive order overhauling how U.S. elections are run 
prompted swift lawsuits from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the 
League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and 
others, who called it unconstitutional.

   U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington sided with voting 
rights groups and Democrats, saying that the Constitution gives the power to 
regulate federal elections to states and Congress --- not the president. She 
noted federal lawmakers are currently working on their own legislation to 
require proof of citizenship to vote.

   In a 120-page decision on Thursday, she said the plaintiffs had proven that 
the proof-of-citizenship requirement would cause their clients irreparable harm 
and go against the public interest, while the government had offered "almost no 
defense of the President's order on the merits."

   Accordingly, she granted a preliminary injunction to stop the citizenship 
requirement from moving forward while the lawsuit plays out.

   The judge also blocked part of the Republican president's order requiring 
public assistance enrollees to have their citizenship assessed before getting 
access to the federal voter registration form.

   But she denied other requests from a group of Democratic plaintiffs, 
including refusing to block Trump's order to require all mailed ballots to be 
received by Election Day nationwide. She also did not touch Trump's order to 
open certain databases to billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government 
Efficiency to allow it to review state voter lists to search for noncitizens. 
The judge said those arguments brought by Democrats were either premature or 
should be brought by states instead.

   The plaintiffs had argued Trump's proof-of-citizenship requirement violated 
the Constitution's so-called Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress 
the authority to determine how elections are run.

   They also argued that Trump's order asserts power that he does not have over 
an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 
sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter 
registration form.

   During an April 17 hearing, attorneys for the plaintiffs had said requiring 
proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form would complicate 
their clients' voter registration drives at grocery stores and other public 
places.

   Aria Branch, counsel for the Democratic National Committee and other 
Democratic plaintiffs, also argued the executive order's effort to tighten mail 
ballot deadlines would irreparably harm her clients by forcing them to 
reallocate resources to help voters navigate the changes.

   "That's time, money and organizational resources and strategy that can't be 
recouped," she said.

   Michael Gates, counsel for the Trump administration, said in the hearing a 
preliminary injunction wasn't warranted because the order hadn't been 
implemented and a citizenship requirement would not be on the federal voter 
registration form for many months.

   Roman Palomares, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, 
a nonpartisan plaintiff, said Thursday the judge's decision was a "victory for 
voters."

   "Efforts to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate must not 
stand because our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they 
can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately," he said in a 
statement.

   Representing the Democratic plaintiffs, Branch said in a Thursday statement 
that "this fight is far from over" but called the ruling a "victory for 
democracy and the rule of law over presidential overreach."

   The chairs of the DNC, Democratic Governors Association and Democratic 
committees in Congress said if the judge hadn't ruled in their favor on 
citizenship proof, "Americans across the country --- including married women 
who changed their last name and low-income individuals --- could have been 
unable to register to vote."

   The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said it was disappointed by 
the ruling.

   "Few things are more sacred to a free society or more essential to democracy 
than the protection of its election systems," said Harmeet Dhillon, assistant 
attorney general for civil rights.

   Donald Palmer, chair of the EAC, a defendant in the case, said his office 
was still reviewing the ruling and opinion "but we will comply with the Judge's 
decision."

   The judge's decision comes as state and local election officials from across 
the country are meeting to consider the implications of Trump's executive order 
on their work.

   The U.S. Election Assistance Commission's Standards Board, which was holding 
a public hearing in North Carolina on Thursday, is a bipartisan advisory group 
of election officials from every state that meets annually.

   Meanwhile, other lawsuits against Trump's order are still pending.

   In early April, 19 Democratic attorneys general asked the court to reject 
Trump's executive order. Washington and Oregon, which both hold all-mail 
elections, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

   The U.S. differs from many other countries in that it does not hold national 
elections run by the federal government. Instead, elections are decentralized 
-- overseen by the states and run by thousands of local jurisdictions.