The GOP administration is attempting to reshape how Americans vote by mail, using federal agencies and the U.S. Postal Service to establish new eligibility and ballot-delivery requirements.
The Constitution gives states a central role in administering elections, while Congress has authority under the Elections Clause to regulate federal elections. The president does not have a general constitutional power to rewrite election procedures by executive order. That is why Trump's March 31 executive order has triggered lawsuits from states and voting-rights organizations.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with other federal agencies, to create state-specific citizenship lists identifying people who are U.S. citizens and will be at least 18 when eligible to vote in a federal election. The administration says the lists are intended to help verify eligibility. The order also directs the Postal Service to develop rules affecting the delivery of mail-in and absentee ballots.
On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to lift one lower-court injunction that had blocked implementation of portions of the order. But an important distinction is being lost in some descriptions of the ruling: the Court did not declare Trump's election order constitutional or establish that the president has unlimited authority over mail voting. The majority instead concluded that the states' challenge to that particular injunction was premature because the disputed rules had not yet caused the concrete harm required for the lawsuit to proceed in that form. Another injunction remains, leaving the administration's plans subject to additional litigation.
That distinction matters. The administration is trying to implement sweeping changes just weeks before states begin sending ballots for the November midterm elections. Election officials and voting-rights groups warn that hurried implementation, inaccurate federal matching and new Postal Service requirements could create confusion or prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots.
The underlying justification is also disputed. Evidence of widespread voting by non-citizens remains lacking, while recent government efforts to identify non-citizens on voter rolls have produced substantially smaller verified numbers than preliminary claims suggested.
The Supreme Court has therefore not settled the central constitutional question. It has allowed part of Trump's plan to move forward while the legal battle continues. The next question is whether the administration can turn a presidential executive order into a nationwide voting system that Congress has not enacted and that many states oppose.
