* Click here for the motion for a preliminary injunction and click here for the original lawsuit. Press release…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul [yesterday] joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump Administration from implementing an executive order President Trump signed in March, which is an unconstitutional attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the country.
The executive order attempts to conscript state election officials into the president’s campaign to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements when Americans register to vote. It also seeks to upend commonsense, well-established state procedures for counting ballots – procedures that make it easier for Americans’ voices to be heard.
“I am urging the court to block this executive order because the authority to modify the rules established for U.S. elections lies with Congress. Instead of imposing voting restrictions, we should focus our efforts on encouraging more Americans across the country to participate in the democratic process,” Raoul said. “I will continue to defend Illinois law, which empowers people to vote, and oppose any attempts to disenfranchise voters.”
Raoul and the attorneys general filed a lawsuit earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, explaining that the power to regulate elections is reserved to the states and Congress. Raoul and the coalition asked the court to block the challenged provisions of the executive order and declare them unconstitutional and unenforceable because the challenged provisions go beyond the scope of presidential power and are otherwise contrary to law.
In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Raoul and the attorneys general explain that the executive order acutely injures their states’ compelling interest in the integrity of their election processes. For example, the documentary proof of citizenship requirements have necessitated an immediate response from some state elections officials, who must consider how to carry out their voter registration duties subject to the new requirements by meeting with their staff, speaking with local elections officials, and beginning to plan for a near future with the requirements in place — or risk the loss of federal funding.
In addition, to force states to comply with the new ballot receipt deadline, the executive order uses enforcement threats by the U.S. Attorney General and conditions on funding. In order to properly administer elections in line with that new ballot receipt deadline, state elections administrators must devote significant additional resources to training, education and support of local elections officials and the voting public.
Joining Attorney General Raoul in filing today’s motion for a preliminary injunction are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin
* This ought to be a no-brainer. No single executive should be able to unilaterally impose voting restrictions on states. But check this out from the ILGOP…
We sounded the alarm last week when JB Pritzker openly declared he would refuse to follow President Trump’s executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. That’s election rigging—plain and simple.
Pass a bill, sign it into law.
* Sun-Times…
An estimated 9% of voting-age U.S. citizens, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available, according to a 2023 report by the Brennan Center for Justice and other groups. The study also found racial disparities in the numbers, with about 8% of white voting-age U.S. citizens not having citizenship documents readily available compared to 11% of voting-age U.S. citizens of color.
- Captain Obvious - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 9:07 am:
There is a big difference between don’t have and can’t get. I doubt very many of those who say they don’t have proof of citizenship couldn’t get such proof. But that really only matters if the executive order is ruled to be enforceable. While I agree with it’s substance, I am dubious of it’s constitutionality. Seems like something Congress might be able to enact for Federal elections.
- low level - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 9:11 am:
Let me sound the alarm of what would happen next. Should the EO remain in place, Republicans next move would be to say the documents provided were fake or somehow fraudulent. If you are MAGA, however, you are all good.
Thats how the GOP rolls these days.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 9:11 am:
“The study also found racial disparities in the numbers … .” Surprise surprise surprise … .
- Google Is Your Friend - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 9:39 am:
==Pass a bill, sign it into law.==
Unlikely to say the least.
https://time.com/7281249/congress-trump-100-days/
- Iron Duke - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 9:59 am:
Strange how there are no lawsuits against the disparate impact of the federal government mandating you need a Real ID to travel on an airplane as of tomorrow
Somehow it is a threat to democracy to also require one to vote
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:11 am:
@Duke: because voting is fundamental and flying isn’t?
- Norseman - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:11 am:
The IL MAGA GOP gaslighting with the best of the looneys. Here’s a lesson for you folks. Exec Orders don’t override Federal or state laws. They are directions to the Fed Executive Branch. They are also useful propaganda tools to con the uninformed.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:12 am:
1Dule: because ones a law and one’s an edict without legal foundation?
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:14 am:
@Duke: because one had about twenty years to be implemented and the other about twenty days?
- Iron Duke - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:17 am:
Voter integrity is also fundamental
According to Gallup 83% support proof of citizenship to register to vote and 84% support photo id to cast a ballot
These measures would pass a Republican House but not get the required 60 votes in the US Senate
https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx
- Remember the Alamo II - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:30 am:
=== Voter integrity is also fundamental ===
It is, but you cannot provide any evidence of fraud. Instead, you are hoping to disenfranchise people who may not have, or have the means to obtain, a driver’s license or State ID just because you disagree with their politics.
The fact of the matter is, election authorities have resources to vet those that are registering to vote. Your belief that there is ongoing fraud or ineligible people voting that justifies the President’s Executive Order has no basis in fact, and only serves your partisan goals.
- Mike K - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:42 am:
Illinois has strong proof of voter identity procedures at the “get go”, when the voter registers in the first place. Ballot integrity is not meaningfully enhanced by requiring the voter to ALSO carry citizenship proof on election day. This is a “solution in search of a This article points out how overzealous rules can deny first amendment rights.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuns-turned-away-at-ind-polling-station/
- low level - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 10:55 am:
== Strange how there are no lawsuits against the disparate impact of the federal government mandating you need a Real ID ==
That is also incorrect. There were several lawsuits.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 11:25 am:
===Unlikely to say the least.===
Not my problem.
- Iron Duke - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 11:57 am:
Over 80% on any issue is a mandate
By definition that’s not a partisan exercise
There are zero lawsuits in Illinois concerning Real ID not several
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 12:01 pm:
===Over 80% on any issue is a mandate ===
You seem to be confusing campaigns with governing and constitutional rights.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 12:09 pm:
All of these efforts are based on the fallacy that vote fraud is materially impacting our democratic elections.
Prove that this is actually happening, then we can discuss methods to remedy this problem.
Until then, there is no need to discuss potentially restricting people’s fundamental right to vote.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 12:29 pm:
=According to Gallup 83% support proof of citizenship to register to vote and 84% support photo id to cast a ballot=
So what? I mean, if we are going to rule on popularity poles why are you also not citing the popularity of IVF, choice for abortion, the lack of public support of tariffs? I mean the list goes on. And it is totally meaningless. In this case an executive order does not supercede federal or state law. Period.
BTW, the last public official to speak to the security of our elections is now suddenly under investigation. You good with that?
- low level - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 1:24 pm:
==There are zero lawsuits in Illinois concerning Real ID not several==
There were several nationwide. You didnt say just Illinois when making the comment. You are 0 for 3 now and really are not very bright.
- MyTwoCents - Tuesday, May 6, 25 @ 3:25 pm:
There’s an easy way to look at all of the EOs that conservatives ignore. Reverse the roles. Imagine if President Harris was issuing EOs on favorite liberal policies, whether it’s gun control or freezing federal funds to states that ban abortions or saying the US government can only procure products from unionized companies, etc. The list could go on, but the point is these same conservatives would be absolutely up in arms, call everything unconstitutional, filing lawsuits, drafting articles of impeachment, etc. But these are the same conservatives who think they can declare laws unconstitutional without needing SCOTUS to issue a ruling but legislating through EOs is perfectly acceptable. Of course only when Trump legislates through EOs.
Also, something slightly off topic, I’m not a big Rand Paul fan but there’s a good clip of him going off on the House over the ridiculous rules put in place to prevent votes on tariffs. Well worth the watch.