Second judge rejects parts of Trump's order to require proof of citizenship to vote in elections
The order, described in March by the White House as 'the farthest-reaching executive action taken' in the nation's history, quickly led to multiple lawsuits. In April, a federal judge in Washington DC ruled against the order in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic party and voting rights groups, blocking its implementation.
Tuesday's ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general and is one of many legal actions the top prosecutors in blue states have brought against the Trump administration to curb illegality and overreach, the attorneys general have said.
Denise J Casper, a federal judge in Massachusetts, ruled that the attorneys general had a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging some provisions of the order, leading her to grant an injunction that stops the provisions from going into effect.
'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that US citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' Casper wrote. The issue, rather, is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship when other parts of the government, such as Congress, have authority for such election requirements, and statutes do not require it, she wrote.
The executive order comes amid an ongoing false narrative pushed by the right that large numbers of people without US citizenship are voting in national elections. A bill that was moving through Congress, the Save Act, would have required documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other provisions, which voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people, including women who changed their names in marriage.
The executive order made extensive changes to voting eligibility and processes, including requiring the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, empowering federal agencies to cut funding to states deemed noncompliant and instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute what the White House paints as 'election crimes'.
One provision, which the ruling on Friday blocked, called on local elections officials to assess citizenship prior to giving out voter registration forms at public assistance agencies.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
'Defendants cannot point to any source of authority for the president to impose this requirement on the states,' Casper noted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will lowering the voting age to 16 help Labour keep power?
In a slightly surprising move on one of the last few days before parliament's long summer recess, the government has announced it wants to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. This change was in the Labour manifesto, and Keir Starmer had expressed renewed support for it in April, telling a select committee: 'I think that if you're old enough to go out to work, if you're old enough to pay your taxes, then you are entitled to have a say on how your taxes are spent. And also, we do have voting at a younger age in different parts of the United Kingdom and the sky didn't fall in.' However, the policy wasn't in the King's Speech, which led some to doubt it would ever arrive. Looks like their time has arrived... Does it need new legislation? Yes, and that's what's coming. Rushanara Ali, the minister responsible, has confirmed that votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for all UK elections would form part of a new Elections Bill. Actually, at least as important electorally will be other measures in the bill designed to increase turnout at elections – expanding forms of voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards and automatic voter registration. Modernising the rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference should also make the system fairer. However, there's no word on another idea Starmer once floated, which was to give EU nationals resident in the UK the right to vote in general elections (ie aside from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, who already enjoy the privilege for historical reasons). Will it make a difference? Ali describes it as 'seismic' – it is the biggest change to the UK-wide franchise since 1969 when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 (though Scotland and Wales have already gone to 16). However, the number of new voters involved is relatively small – some 1.5 million who qualify under citizenship rules, out of a total electorate of around 48 million. They're also less likely to turn up to vote compared to, say, those over 60; the grey vote will still outweigh the youth vote. Can it save the Labour government? Not really, and not just because not that many teenagers will bother to vote. This time last year, when Labour was overwhelmingly popular, the new voters might have made a difference in a few seats, but now perhaps less so, just because Labour support has sunk relative to other parties. However, the dynamics are unclear. The best guess is that Labour would still net a small advantage over the Conservatives, who are virtually invisible in this age group, but certainly not so much over the Greens, independents/Corbynites, and, to some extent, Reform UK. Nigel Farage's party has some support among younger males, but much less so with young women (and the female vote more generally). No doubt Reform will take some inspiration from having an 18-year-old Reform councillor leading Warwickshire, and a 19-year-old in charge of children's social services in Leicestershire. Will it happen? Yes, but it's not that popular. As well as Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru all backed it at the last election. But according to pollsters More in Common, last year the public clearly opposed the idea, by a 47 to 28 per cent margin. According to an ITN/Merlin poll, about half of 16 to 18-year-olds don't want the vote. What do the kids want? Same as the rest of the voters who want things like a functioning NHS. However, they may have some special interests of their own: restoration of the educational maintenance grant (for sixth formers and equivalent) in England would seem an obvious vote-winner here, and improved opportunities for degree places and apprenticeships, lower tuition fees, and improved living allowances. At the moment, younger voters also seem more concerned about climate change (where they have more to lose) than older cohorts. It's quite likely they'd be more pro-EU than the older generations; demographics are already eroding the Leave base. In Scotland, the youngest voters tend to favour independence too, but they already had the vote in the 2014 referendum, which narrowly rejected separation. Besides Scotland and Wales, the franchise has been set at 16 in nations ranging from Brazil and Austria to the Isle of Man and, as the prime minister noted, the sky didn't fall in.
.png%3Ftrim%3D194%2C0%2C472%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
US corn growers warn Trump's push for cane sugar in Coke will cost thousands of American jobs
U.S. corn growers have said that Donald Trump 's push to use real sugar cane in Coca-Cola 'doesn't make sense' and will cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs. In a statement, the Corn Refiners Association added that the move would also lower farm income and boost imports of foreign sugar 'all with no nutritional benefit.' It comes after Trump announced Wednesday that he had spoken to executives at Coca-Cola about changing the recipe – replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar cane. 'This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' the president wrote. While Coca-Cola in the U.S. is typically made with high-fructose corn syrup, the soda company uses cane sugar in other countries, such as Mexico. 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn't make sense,' the CRA wrote in their statement.'President Trump stands for American manufacturing jobs, American farmers and reducing the trade deficit.' 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit.' While it has been claimed previously that high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than other sugars, a Healthline article last updated in December 2023 said high-fructose corn syrup and regular table sugar have similar effects on a person's health, and both are harmful when consumed excessively. Trump is known for his love of Diet Coke, which is made with the artificial sweetener aspartame. In January, Coca-Cola presented Trump with a commemorative Diet Coke bottle. As noted by Axios, a full shift to the use of cane sugar from high fructose corn syrup in Coca-Cola could result in an economic hit to Iowa – the country's largest corn producer. However, it would also help the economy of Florida, the U.S.'s top cane sugar producer. In a statement, Coca-Cola did not confirm a full shift to the use of sugar cane. "We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand," a spokesperson said. "More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon."
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's trade tsar will pressure Trump to slash tariffs on US trip
Britain's business secretary will put pressure on the White House to slash the blanket 10 per cent tax slapped on UK imports during a visit to Washington DC. Jonathan Reynolds intends to discuss sectoral tariffs and ways to drive down Mr Trump's tariffs when he meets with Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, and trade representative Jamieson Greer, sources told Politico. In May, the UK became the first country to secure a trade deal with the Trump administration, which provided tariff relief for car imports and the British Aerospace industry. However, most UK goods imported to the US remain subject to Mr Trump's 10 per cent blanket reciprocal tariffs announced on his self-dubbed 'liberation day', and no deal was reached on the steel, film or pharmaceutical industries, triggering alarm among business executives. Mr Reynolds plans to spend four to five days in Washington in the final week of July, a source told Politico. The trip falls around the time that Mr Trump is planning to meet Sir Keir Starmer during a private visit to Scotland, where the US president said he expects trade talks. 'We are going to have a meeting with him, probably in Aberdeen. And we're going to do a lot of different things, also refine the trade deal that we've made,' he said on Monday. Peter Mandelson, the British ambassador to Washington, warned last weekend that the 10 per cent tariffs are 'here to stay' despite UK pushback. Under the terms of the current agreement, tariff rates on imports of British cars to the US fell to 10 per cent, down from 27.5 per cent, for up to 100,000 vehicles a year. The British aerospace sector was also spared from Mr Trump's 10 per cent tariff. Last month, Mr Reynolds said he has 'no doubt' that the US will lower 25 per cent tariffs on British steel and aluminium imports, which are yet to kick in. A White House source said Howard Lutnick, the US commerce secretary, would determine a quota of steel and aluminium products that could enter the US without being subject to the 25 per cent tariff. Uncertainty still hangs over drug makers amid Mr Trump's demands for them to move factories to the US. The US president said on Tuesday he would impose tariffs on pharmaceutical imports 'probably at the end of the month', adding: 'We're going to start off with a low tariff and give the pharmaceutical companies a year or so to build, and then we're going to make it a very high tariff.'
