On March 25, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order introducing significant changes to the administration of federal elections in the United States. The order mandates proof of citizenship for voter registration, requires that all mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, and imposes stricter regulations on voting equipment. States that fail to comply risk losing federal funding. Greenwich Time+3AP News+3springfield-news-sun+3Vox+4Greenwich Time+4AP News+4
Proof of Citizenship Requirement
The executive order directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to amend the federal voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. Additionally, it instructs federal agencies to share data with states to help identify non-citizens on voter rolls. While proponents argue this measure enhances election integrity, critics contend it could disenfranchise eligible voters who lack immediate access to such documentation. Greenwich Time+1springfield-news-sun+1New York Magazine+2springfield-news-sun+2AP News+2AP News+1springfield-news-sun+1
Mail-In Ballot Deadline
The order stipulates that only mail-in ballots received by Election Day will be counted, eliminating the practice in some states of accepting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico allow for the counting of such ballots. This change could disproportionately affect voters in states like California, where ballots are accepted up to seven days after Election Day if postmarked on time. springfield-news-sun
Regulation of Voting Equipment
The executive order instructs the EAC to revise its guidelines to prohibit the use of voting systems that rely on barcodes or QR codes for vote tabulation. States utilizing such technology, including Georgia, may need to overhaul their voting systems to comply with these new standards. springfield-news-sun+1Greenwich Time+1
Federal Funding and Enforcement
To enforce compliance, the order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that do not adhere to its provisions. It also directs federal agencies to collaborate with states in prosecuting election-related crimes. Critics argue that these measures infringe upon states’ rights to regulate elections, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. springfield-news-sun+2AP News+2AP News+2springfield-news-sunAP News
Legal and Constitutional Challenges
Legal experts and state officials have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the executive order. The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress having the power to “make or alter” such regulations. However, it does not grant the president authority over election administration. Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights program at the Brennan Center for Justice, described the order as “statutorily and constitutionally” illegal. AP NewsAP News+2springfield-news-sun+2Greenwich Time+2Greenwich Time+1springfield-news-sun+1
Furthermore, the order’s directives to the EAC, an independent agency established by Congress, have been questioned. Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy at the Campaign Legal Center, noted that the president cannot unilaterally dictate actions to the EAC. Greenwich Time
State Responses
State officials have expressed strong opposition to the executive order. Connecticut Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas and Attorney General William Tong labeled the order “illegal” and an attempt to suppress votes. They argue that it would complicate election processes, impose financial burdens, and overstep state authority. Similar sentiments have been echoed by officials in other states, who anticipate legal challenges and emphasize their commitment to maintaining secure and accessible elections. CT Insider
Conclusion
President Trump’s executive order seeks to implement sweeping changes to the U.S. electoral system by imposing federal mandates on voter registration, mail-in ballot deadlines, and voting equipment standards. While the administration asserts that these measures are necessary to ensure election integrity, critics argue that they infringe upon states’ rights and could lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement. The order is expected to face numerous legal challenges, and its ultimate impact on the electoral process remains uncertain.
