A federal district court judge in Boston heard arguments on Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening rules around mail-in voting.
Trump’s order would direct the Department of Homeland Security to compile and give each state a list of U.S. citizens over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote by mail.
The plaintiffs, including the ACLU of Massachusetts, State Attorney General Andrea Campbell and 20 other states, argued that the order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law while risking mass disenfranchisement to eligible voters.
“The Constitution is clear: the states and Congress — not the president — set the rules for our elections,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “The Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order.”
The hearing also comes a week after a U.S. district judge in Washington D.C. declined to take up the Democratic Party’s effort to halt the implementation of the order ahead of the midterm elections in November.
The lawsuit for which the hearing was held in Boston today was filed in U.S. District Court in April by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts; League of Women Voters; Association of Americans Resident Overseas; U.S. Vote Foundation; OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates; and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc.
The executive order was signed by President Donald Trump on March 31 following years in which he pushed for tighter restrictions on mail-in voting and repeatedly claiming that widespread voter fraud caused his loss in the 2020 election.
ACLU of Massachusetts has previously said in a statement
that allowing the federal government to issue lists to states of eligible voters “risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters” because federal databases are “out-of-date and unreliable.”
During the hearing, plaintiffs also argued that obtaining the data to create these lists risks violating the Privacy Act.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani asked government attorneys detailed questions about how the lists will be compiled and provided to states, and how it would prevent disenfranchisement.
Stephen Pezzi, an attorney for the Justice Department, said the order is currently in compliance with the Privacy Act and that the government has not made a decision on what database it would use to create these lists.
Talwani also noted that the lists would be “underinclusive” since the government would have difficulty getting data on certain people, like those who move state-to-state or women who have gotten married and changed their last names.
Under the order, the U.S. Postal Service would also be required to only deliver ballots to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list and mandates states to preserve election-related records for five years.
Plaintiffs asked the court for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of Section Three of the order, which directs the U.S. Postal Service to create unlawful new rules for the transmission of mail-in ballots.
Theresa Lee, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said the order is already causing harm since voters have concerns, especially those who rely on mail-in voting.
“Mail voting helps millions of Americans participate in our democracy, including seniors, voters with disabilities, military families, students, caregivers, and working people,” said Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters. “No president has the authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules or dictate how states administer their elections.”
