A federal courtroom in Washington will be the venue on May 14 for the first significant legal challenge to a presidential executive order that imposes new restrictions on mail-in voting. Democratic Party attorneys argue the March 31 directive is unconstitutional and could prevent millions of eligible citizens from casting ballots by mail.
The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. ET (1800 GMT) in litigation filed by top Democratic leaders and the Democratic National Committee seeking to block the order. Plaintiffs in the case include Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The matter has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump; he is expected to issue a written ruling at a later date.
What the executive order says
The March 31 executive order instructs the administration to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to employ federal data to assist state election officials in verifying voter eligibility. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters appearing on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. In addition, the order requires states to preserve election-related records for five years.
The president has in recent years advanced the claim that his 2020 election loss was caused by widespread voter fraud, and has called for stricter controls on voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections, when Republicans will defend slim congressional majorities.
Legal landscape and related suits
The Washington case has been consolidated with two other lawsuits brought by voting rights groups that challenge the same executive order. A separate, similar lawsuit by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys is pending before a federal judge in Boston.
The Justice Department has urged the courts to dismiss or delay the lawsuits as premature on the grounds that federal agencies have not yet put the executive order into effect.
Next steps and uncertainty
Arguments in the Washington hearing will focus on whether the order is constitutional and whether it would materially restrict the right to vote by mail for eligible Americans, as the plaintiffs allege. Judge Nichols’s written opinion, when issued, will determine whether the executive order can be blocked in whole or in part or will proceed toward implementation pending further review.
Because the litigation is ongoing and consolidated with other challenges, the final legal outcome and any timetable for implementation remain uncertain.