A federal judge has narrowed lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in voting, ruling challenges can only aim to prevent its implementation before the November elections. Meanwhile, Trump urged Utah to stop its mail-in voting ahead of primaries, citing concerns about potential fraud.
The rulings and statements impact the ongoing debate and legal challenges surrounding mail-in voting in the United States, particularly as the country approaches elections.
A federal judge in Boston has narrowed the scope of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's executive order concerning mail-in voting. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that legal challenges could only proceed if they aimed to prevent the order's implementation before the upcoming November elections, rather than seeking to block it entirely or retroactively. The judge found that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate immediate harm because the U.S. Postal Service had not yet acted to implement the order, and he declined to block a provision requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters, as it was not yet clear if the department's actions would violate federal law. However, Nichols indicated that the outcome could change if and when agencies take concrete steps, allowing plaintiffs to renew their motions at that time.
Plaintiffs argue the executive order, issued on March 31, unlawfully attempts to grant the President authority over election rules, which they contend belongs to states and Congress, and risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters.
Separately, President Trump urged Utah to halt its mail-in voting ahead of the state's primaries, expressing concern that such a system, similar to Colorado's, would lead to fraud and benefit Democrats. Utah's Democratic Party opposed any federal rollback of vote-by-mail in the state.