President Donald Trump announced plans on social media to unilaterally mandate a universal voter ID requirement, ban mail-in voting for literally everyone except the very ill and the “far-away military,” and eliminate voting machines in favor of strictly paper ballots. According to the President’s post:
Legal experts and election administrators responded with customary awe and the gift of judicial scrutiny: it’s unconstitutional. State legislatures, not the executive branch, regulate elections. Congress can pass election laws, but the president’s powers do not include rewriting electoral rules on a whim.
The president’s earlier executive order from March demanded citizenship documents for voter registration, prohibited counting mail ballots received after Election Day, and threatened to yoke state behavior to federal funding whims. Legal scholars waved red flags and cited the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which hands election regulation to states—and only Congress via legislation may alter that.
A federal judge, presumably mindful of history and constitutional structure, struck down the citizenship documentation requirement in April, deeming it an unconstitutional grab for power. The judge allowed debate to continue on mail-in cutoff rules—but noted the administration’s legal footing resembled marshmallow more than marble.
State officials were similarly aghast. In Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes declared he would “tell [Trump] to pound sand” if the president attempted to ban mail-in voting via executive fiat. He reminded everyone that Arizona, like many states, relies heavily on vote-by-mail.
Meanwhile, the ACLU, in its trademark calm tone, declared the actions a “blatant overreach that threatens to disenfranchise tens of millions.” They promised to see the President in court, lending a dry sigh to proceedings that were already almost certainly headed there.
Legal theory has quietly circulated that executive orders bind only the federal government, not states, unless Congress explicitly grants new powers. The President cannot force states to alter their election laws or sentencing procedures by decree.
Thus, in a historic display of political ambition dressed as executive efficiency, President Trump declared plans to reshape the entire democratic process using only an X post, a red pen, and the unspoken confidence that courts, states, and the Constitution probably aren’t actually going to stop him. Observers noted his comprehensive sweep of voting reforms is technically impossible, legally questionable, and comically premature—a perfect example of governing by delirious proclamation rather than by law.
In a final flourish, legal observers anticipate this entire plan will be litigated into oblivion—including the inevitable injunctions, lawsuits, and constitutional lecture notes. After all, elections in America remain—much to his frustration—a system structured by federalism, not fiat.
