Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order Seeking to Impose Sweeping Voting Restrictions

10th lawsuit against Trump Administration asserts that voting restrictions are not authorized by U.S. Constitution or Congress

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that he is leading, with Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the federal Election Assistance Commission, and other Trump Administration officials over Executive Order No. 14248 (the Elections Executive Order), an unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the country. Among other things, the Elections Executive Order attempts to conscript State election officials in the President’s campaign to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements when Americans seek to register to vote. It also seeks to upend common-sense, well-established State procedures for counting ballots — procedures that make it easier for peoples’ voices to be heard. 

The President has no constitutional power to rewrite State election laws by decree, nor does the President have the authority to modify the rules Congress has created for elections. The coalition’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, explains that the power to regulate elections is reserved to the States and Congress, and that therefore, the Elections Executive Order is ultra vires, beyond the scope of presidential power, and violative of the separation of powers. The attorneys general ask the court to block the challenged provisions of the Elections Executive Order and declare them unconstitutional and void.

“Day after day, we continue to witness President Trump’s utter disdain for the rule of law. Let me remind him: He is not a king,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “When he took office, he swore to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ He also has a constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and that doesn’t involve rewriting them however he sees fit. My fellow attorneys general and I are taking him to court because this Executive Order is nothing but a blatantly illegal power grab and an attempt to disenfranchise voters. Neither the Constitution nor Congress authorize the President’s attempted voting restrictions. We will not be bullied by him. We will fight like hell in court to stop him.”

“I stand with Attorney General Bonta and the 18 other state attorneys general that have filed a lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order which, if left unfettered, will compromise critical state and local election processes and disenfranchise millions of American voters. This executive order is an illegal attempt to trample on the states and Congress’s constitutional authority over elections,” said California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. “Throughout history, people have tried to make voting more difficult through oppressive means such as poll taxes, literacy tests, improper voter roll purges, strategic polling place closures, and voter intimidation tactics. The progress this nation has made over the past 60 years since the passage of the Voters Rights Act cannot be minimized and should not be erased.”

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general assert that provisions of the Elections Executive Order will cause imminent and irreparable harm to the States if they are not enjoined. The challenged provisions include:

• Forcing the Election Assistance Commission (the Commission) to require documentary proof of citizenship on the Federal mail registration form (the Federal Form). The Commission is an independent, bipartisan, four-member body established by Congress. It is responsible for developing the Federal Form, in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, for the registration of voters for elections for Federal office. In their lawsuit, the attorneys general underscore that Congress has never required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote using the Federal Form. 
• Forcing States to alter their ballot counting laws to exclude “absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day.” Consistent with federal law, members of the multistate coalition have exercised their constitutional and statutory authority to determine how to best receive and count votes that are timely cast by mail in federal elections. Many of the Plaintiff States provide for the counting of timely absentee and mail ballots received after Election Day. For example, California law provides that ballots returned by mail are timely if postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days. 
• Requiring military and overseas voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship and eligibility to vote in state elections. The Federal Post Card Application form is used by voters in the military or living abroad to register to vote in federal elections. Federal law unequivocally grants them the ability to register and cast a ballot “in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States” — there is no requirement that this form demand documentary proof of citizenship or proof of current eligibility to vote in a particular state.
• Commanding the head of each state-designated Federal voter registration agency to immediately begin “assess[ing] citizenship prior to providing a Federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs.” This aspect of the Elections Executive Order commandeers State agencies and their personnel, forcing States to participate in the President’s unlawful and unnecessary agenda. 
• Threatening to withhold various streams of federal funding to the States for purported noncompliance with the challenged provisions. In so doing, the Elections Executive Order seeks to control Plaintiff States’ exercise of their sovereign powers through raw Executive domination, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and its underlying principles of federalism and the separation of powers. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorneys General Bonta and Ford are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.