Good News: A Court Rejects Trump's Effort To Suppress The Vote

In March, Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS.” Predictably, it was designed to do anything but that. Its goal was to make it more difficult to register to vote.

In April, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a senior judge in the District of Columbia, issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevented key parts of the executive order from going into effect while the litigation moved forward. The key problem Judge Kollar-Kotelly observed was that Trump was trying to usurp the power the Constitution affords to the states and Congress to run elections.

Friday, the Judge granted summary judgment in parts of the case, entering a permanent injunction that prevents the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing the worst provision of Trump’s executive order: one that purported to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The measure was designed to suppress voter participation in elections; a solution in search of a problem. It’s akin to the poll taxes used in the South before the Supreme Court put an end to them. Trump’s plan would require people to jump through expensive hoops to acquire proof of birth and costly forms of identification, like passports. At least 21 million Americans don’t have that kind of proof readily available. Only 51% of Americans have passports, which cost adults applying for the first time a $165.00 fee, not to mention assembling the documents you need, getting a photograph of yourself, and making it to an appointment. The problem is especially acute for young people and students who live away from home, and whose documents are with their parents, if they have them at all.

The Judge wrote, “The Constitution’s allocation of authority over federal elections between Congress and the States may not be intuitive. But it is no accident,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Instead, this design was the product of carefully considered compromises among our Constitution’s Framers.” Those compromisers were part of the attention to avoid rule by a king-a dictator.

Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to claim he has powers the Constitution does not give to the president. And this is especially dangerous when it comes to voting, given his track record. We the people must have the right to choose their leaders, not the other way around.

Tonight, another federal district judge stood up for the rule of law and for democracy, telling a power hungry president, “No.”

If you’re looking for something you can do to support the judiciary in this moment where district court judges are bravely standing for the rule of law even though they know that means the president could target them, let them know you support them. Send the Judge and others a postcard, like we do to encourage voters to participate in elections, and thank her for standing for the Constitution and the rule of law. It may seem like a small thing, but the judiciary deserves our support and our thanks for what they are doing. Let’s be visible and involved. Let’s make sure the courts know we are paying attention.

It’s good news when a judge blocks Donald Trump’s autocratic intentions. Here, it’s big news. While the administration will likely appeal, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has made plain that this case falls within a basic rule, that when the language of the law is clear, the courts look no further. The Constitution explicitly says states and Congress set the rules for elections, not the president. Donald Trump cannot do whatever he wants to, because Donald Trump is not a king. The rule of law still stands.

If you find value in this kind of clear, experience-driven legal analysis, I hope you’ll consider a paid subscription to Civil Discourse. Your support makes the newsletter possible.

We’re in this together,

Joyce