19 US states sue to block Donald Trump's election executive order: ‘It’s unconstitutional'

The recently signed executive order of United States President Donald Trump, aiming to revamp elections in the country, is facing fresh legal troubles as democratic officials of 19 states have sued to block the order. According to them, the executive order is unconstitutional and takes away the authority of the states to conduct their own elections.

The executive order, which seeks to make election rules stricter in the US, requires people to present documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and ensuring all ballots are received by Election Day. It also directs states to work with federal agencies to share voter lists and prosecute election crimes and face funding cuts if they fail to do so.

However, the democratic attorneys general of the US states who have sued the order, say that the states have broad authority over how elections are conducted there.

“The President has no power to do any of this…The Elections EO is unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and un-American,” they wrote in court documents reported by the Associated Press.

No constitutional authority

The 19 states have filed the lawsuit in US District Court in Massachusetts. The states include - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

According to the lawsuit, the US President does not have constitutional authority to alter election procedures of the states. However, the Congress has the right to “make or alter” election regulations for federal elections but can’t interfere with election administration. Also, they argue that states have the authority to make their own election rules, including deciding the time, place and manner of the elections.

“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” AP quoted New York Attorney General Letitia James as saying.

"Neither the Constitution nor Congress authorize the president's attempted voting restrictions…We will not be bullied by him," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement, reported Reuters.

Concerns over disenfranchising of voters

While the fresh lawsuit focuses majorly on how the executive order signed on March 25 undermines the states’ authority over elections, the other lawsuits filed previously have raised concerns over how it threatens to disenfranchise voters.

The new order requires citizens to show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, however, the lawsuits say that millions of Americans, who are eligible to vote, don't have proper documentation. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under penalty of perjury, in order to vote.

The documentary proof, under the new order, includes either a US passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license that “indicates the applicant is a citizen," and a valid photo ID as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship, reported AP.

The democrats, however, argue that many American citizens don’t have US passports and don’t have access to documents such as birth certificates.

With agency inputs