A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s effort to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for mail-in voter registration applications cannot be enforced, finding key portions of the president’s election-related executive order unconstitutional and beyond presidential authority.
U.S. District Judge John H. Chun of the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment Friday on claims challenging the citizenship documentation mandate and other directives tied to the administration’s March executive order aimed at reshaping national election procedures. The ruling specifically blocks the requirement that mail-in voter registration applicants produce passports or other documentary evidence of citizenship—a provision Judge Chun said could not stand because it encroaches on the constitutional roles of Congress and the states.
Executive Order vs. Constitutional Boundaries
The litigation stems from an executive order directing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and other federal entities to overhaul elements of the federal voter registration system, including imposing a documentary citizenship requirement and tightening rules on mail-in ballots. Under the order, states and federal agencies were to adopt uniform standards and face potential funding consequences if they failed to comply.
Judge Chun’s 75-page opinion concluded that the citizenship proof requirement unlawfully expanded executive authority in areas traditionally governed by federal statute and state election law. The judge held that forcing applicants to submit documentary proof of citizenship—above and beyond the existing system of self-attestation under penalty of perjury—exceeds what the Constitution permits a president to unilaterally impose.
The court’s decision follows a series of similar setbacks for the administration’s election policies, including prior rulings striking down other portions of the executive order. In cases brought by states like Washington and Oregon and by groups such as the Democratic National Committee and civil rights organizations, judges have found that several election changes likely violate constitutional limits on executive action.
Impact on Voters and Election Administration
Legal advocates for voters hailed the decision as a defense of broad access to registration and a check on executive overreach. Critics of the citizenship proof requirement argued that adding documentary hurdles would disproportionately burden eligible voters who may lack immediate access to birth certificates or passports and could dampen participation, particularly among marginalized communities.
The administration has defended its order as a step to ensure election integrity and limit noncitizen voting, though such cases of noncitizen participation remain rare under existing law. A White House spokesperson has signaled plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that the president acted within his legal authority to protect election processes.
The case will likely continue to evolve as higher courts weigh questions about the scope of executive power over federal elections and the balance between voter access and procedural safeguards.