Please Follow us on Truth Social, X , Youtube , Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Gab
This story is developing...
A source provided us legal vulnerabilities to President Trump's executive order on citizenship for voting:
CRITICAL LEGAL VULNERABILITIES
- APA/Rulemaking Timeline Challenges:
The 120-day final rule mandate for a major USPS rulemaking will be challenged as arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). Courts have invalidated compressed rulemaking timelines that fail to allow meaningful public comment. - Privacy Act Violations:
Using SAVE data and SSA records for voter eligibility verification requires new "routine uses" under the Privacy Act. Until those are properly published, the data sharing may be enjoined. - Anti-Commandeering Doctrine (Printz v. United States):
The EO directs state election officials to receive, implement, and supplement federal lists. States may challenge this as federal commandeering of state officials in violation of the Tenth Amendment. However, the EO carefully uses incentives (funding) and USPS restrictions rather than direct mandates on state officials. - The "Opt-In/Opt-Out" Trap:
The "states may choose" language for the 90-day notification combined with the USPS transmission prohibition creates a de facto opt-in coercive system. States that do not participate lose USPS ballot mail service. Under NFIB v. Sebelius, coercive conditions on federal benefits can be unconstitutional.
9:17 PM
The "May Choose" Language in Section 3(b)(ii)This is the single biggest loophole in the entire document.The EO states states "may choose" to notify USPS of their intent to use mail ballots. This is entirely voluntary. A state like California, New York, or Illinois can simply decline to participate in the notification system entirely. The consequence is that USPS cannot transmit their mail ballots under subsection (iii). But here is the escape: nothing prevents those states from using a private carrier. FedEx, UPS, and state courier services are not subject to USPS rulemaking authority under 39 U.S.C. 401. The EO only regulates USPS. A non-compliant state can simply route all mail ballots through private carriers and the entire Section 3 mechanism is completely bypassed.The EO does not amend the Postal Service's statutory monopoly over letter mail (39 U.S.C. 601) in a way that would prohibit this workaround, and election ballots have historically been treated as outside the mailability monopoly in various contexts.
"Consistent with Applicable State Law" Carve-Out (Section 3(b)(v))Every provision allowing states to modify the Mail-In and Absentee Participation List is qualified by "consistent with applicable state law." A state legislature that passes a law defining its own voter eligibility verification standards inconsistent with the federal system creates an automatic override. The EO cannot preempt validly enacted state election laws without explicit statutory authority, which this EO does not cite or possess.
The Funding Withholding Condition (Section 5)The enforcement mechanism for non-compliant states is withholding federal funds "where such withholding is authorized by law." That qualifier "where authorized by law" is a massive escape hatch. HAVA funds are distributed with specific statutory conditions. The EO cannot create new conditions on existing appropriations without congressional action. Under NFIB v. Sebelius, conditions on federal funds must be: (a) unambiguous, (b) related to the federal interest in the program, and (c) non-coercive. Adding election integrity compliance as a condition to, say, Medicaid funding would fail all three prongs. The administration would need Congress to explicitly authorize the withholding condition for it to be legally operable against a determined state.
"To the Extent Feasible" (Section 2(a))The State Citizenship List mandate opens with "to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law." This is a complete escape hatch for DHS if the infrastructure cannot be built in 90 days, the Privacy Act creates barriers, or SSA data quality is insufficient. DHS can declare partial feasibility and deliver a degraded or incomplete list, and the EO provides no remedy. There is no enforcement mechanism against DHS itself for non-delivery.
No Penalty for Data Quality Failures
The EO creates no consequence for the federal government delivering an inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated State Citizenship List. If DHS transmits a list that wrongly excludes 50,000 citizens in a swing state, there is no penalty, no mandatory correction timeline, and no private right of action for excluded citizens under the EO itself. The only remedy for an excluded citizen is the general due process correction procedure, which has no guaranteed timeline.
"All Applicable Use Agreements" Language Is Circular
The Mail-In and Absentee Participation List must "comply with the Privacy Act and all applicable use agreements." Current USPS use agreements for Election Mail data do not contemplate sharing individual voter enrollment data with state election officials in the manner described. New use agreements must be negotiated state by state. A state that refuses to sign a use agreement on terms it finds unacceptable can block the entire mechanism without formally refusing to participate.
"Excluding Ballots Cast" Removes the Most Probative Evidence
The 5-year records preservation requirement in Section 5 explicitly excludes ballots cast. This is not an accident; secret ballot laws prohibit preservation of voted ballots in a way that connects them to individual voters. But this means the most direct evidence of fraudulent voting (the actual ballot) remains unavailable for forensic analysis. Investigators can prove a ballot was mailed to a fraudulent address via envelope preservation, but cannot prove what was marked on the ballot inside.
But this means the most direct evidence of fraudulent voting (the actual ballot) remains unavailable for forensic analysis. Investigators can prove a ballot was mailed to a fraudulent address via envelope preservation, but cannot prove what was marked on the ballot inside.
The "Good Faith" Defense for Election Administrators
The prosecution prioritization in Section 2(b) targets officials who "issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote." But criminal prosecution requires mens rea (criminal intent). An election administrator who issues a ballot based on a voter registration that appeared valid at the time, without knowledge that the registrant was a non-citizen, has a powerful good faith defense. The federal government would need to prove the administrator knew or should have known the registrant was ineligible. Mass prosecutions of county clerks who processed applications in good faith will fail at trial.
The "Aiding and Abetting" Overreach Will Collapse in Court
Charging election administrators under 18 U.S.C. 2(a) for aiding and abetting non-citizen voting requires proof that the administrator intentionally assisted the non-citizen in voting. Good faith administration of a facially valid voter registration is not aiding and abetting. Courts have been extremely reluctant to sustain aiding and abetting charges against governmental actors performing ministerial functions.
18 U.S.C. 241 Requires Proof of a Conspiracy
Using the civil rights conspiracy statute against election administrators requires proving two or more persons agreed to deprive someone of a federal right. An administrator processing a registration form is not, by that act alone, engaged in a conspiracy. The government would need to show coordination between officials with shared criminal intent. This is a very high bar and will fail in most scenarios absent direct evidence of intentional voter fraud facilitation.
No Definition of "Federal Election" Scope Creates Mixed-Ballot Confusion
Presidential, Senate, and House races are federal elections. State and local races are not. Most ballots include both federal and state races. The EO's entire framework applies to "federal elections" but does not address how states are to administer a dual system where some races are subject to federal certification requirements and others are not. States with all-mail voting (Oregon, Washington, Colorado) will argue the entire ballot must be treated as a state election matter since federal and state races are inseparable on a single ballot.
Section 7(c): No Private Right of Action Cuts Both Ways
The standard "no private right of action" savings clause means citizens who are wrongly excluded from the State Citizenship List or the Mail-In Participation List cannot sue under the EO. But it also means states, localities, and election officials cannot be sued under the EO for non-compliance. The enforcement mechanism is entirely at the discretion of the AG and agency heads. A future administration can simply stop enforcing this EO entirely, and no party has standing to compel enforcement.
President Trump just dropped an executive order regarding ensuring citizenship to vote in Federal elections.
Some sections of the order are below; you can read the full order on the link above.
The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law. Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations.
Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters. Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.
To the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and in coordination with the Commissioner of SSA, shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List).
Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that:
(A) is marked as Official Election Mail, including through designated markings provided by USPS for this purpose, such as the Official Election Mail logo, as necessary and appropriate;
(B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode, or successor USPS technology, that facilitates tracking and is consistent with the other requirements of this section; and
(C) has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards, including barcode placement.
