News
Trump Is Trying to Gain More Power Over Elections. Is His Effort Legal?
President Trump pushed on Tuesday to hand the executive branch unprecedented influence over how federal elections are run, signing a far-reaching and legally dubious order to change U.S. voting rules.
The executive order, which seeks to require proof of citizenship to register to vote as well as the return of all mail ballots by Election Day, is an attempt to upend centuries of settled election law and federal-state relations.
The Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections. Instead, it gives states the power to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress can also pass election laws or override state legislation, as it did with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Yet Mr. Trump’s order, which follows a yearslong Republican push to tighten voting laws out of a false belief that the 2020 election was rigged, bypasses both the states and Congress. Republican lawmakers in Washington are trying to pass many of the same voting restrictions, but they are unlikely to make it through the Senate.
The order’s most eye-catching provisions are the requirements of proof of citizenship and the return of mail ballots by Election Day.
But the order, which threatens to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with it, includes a range of other measures.
It seeks to give federal agencies, including the Elon Musk-led team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, access to state voter rolls to check “for consistency with federal requirements.” It aims to set new rules for election equipment, which could force states to replace voting machines that use bar codes or QR codes. And it instructs the U.S. attorney general to hunt for and prosecute election crimes.
Is this legal?
Probably not all of it, legal experts say — and voting rights groups and state attorneys general are already signaling that they will file challenges.
Several experts predicted that provisions of the order might well be found unlawful, though they said that others, like directions to Mr. Trump’s attorney general and other cabinet members, fell within legal bounds.
“It’s an attempt at a power grab,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The president has been seen in the past as having no role to play when it comes to the conduct of federal elections, and this attempt to assert authority over the conduct of federal elections would take power away from both an independent federal agency and from the states.”
What parts might be challenged?
A central question surrounds Mr. Trump’s attempt to use the Election Assistance Commission, a federal agency that Congress created in 2002 to help election officials with their work, to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement.
Currently, Americans may register to vote in federal elections either through their state or by using a federal form created by the E.A.C. The form includes a box that registrants check to attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens, but it does not require documentation as proof.
The executive order would force the E.A.C. to change that process to require a passport, state identification that includes citizenship information or military identification.
Legal experts dispute that Mr. Trump has the authority to force the agency, which Congress designated as “independent” and which includes two commissioners from each party, to take any action.
“He can ask nicely,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Marymount University who served in the Biden administration. “But he thinks he’s got a power that, at least so far, he does not have. It would take a change in the law and the Supreme Court affirmatively approving a radical expansion of power of the executive.”
Legal experts say the provision requiring all ballots to arrive by Election Day also probably exceeds the president’s legal authority, particularly the threat to withhold federal funding from those states that do not comply. (Seventeen states currently allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive soon afterward.)
“If the president is basically usurping the power of the purse by imposing limits on these grants that Congress itself did not impose, that could be the basis for constitutionally challenging these conditions,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
Mr. Trump’s attempt to force states to turn over voter data to Mr. Musk’s team and federal agencies recalls a similar program from the first Trump administration, a commission on “election integrity” led by Kris Kobach, who is now the Kansas attorney general.
The commission sought data from all 50 states, but 44 of them refused to comply. The Republican secretary of state in Mississippi told the commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”
What is the potential impact on voters and elections?
If the full order were to stand, it could potentially disenfranchise millions of Americans and cost state and local governments millions of dollars.
About 21.3 million people do not have proof of citizenship readily available, according to a 2023 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting rights and democracy group. Nearly four million people do not have the documents at all because they were lost, destroyed or stolen. The executive order does not allow for birth certificates to prove citizenship.
It is also unclear whether women who have changed their surname after marriage will face new hurdles in proving their citizenship.
The order could also lead election officials to throw out sizable numbers of ballots that arrive after Election Day. For example, in Nevada’s two largest counties in the 2022 general election, about 45,000 ballots arrived after Election Day and were counted, according to state data. In Washington State, Kim Wyman, a Republican former secretary of state, estimated that “about a third of the ballots in any given election” arrived on the Wednesday or Thursday after Election Day.
The order could put states in deep budget holes, as well. Many states, including the battlegrounds of Georgia and Pennsylvania, use voting machines with bar codes or QR codes. Replacing them would cost millions of dollars that the order does not provide.
Republicans won in 2024. Why do they want to change voting laws?
Mr. Trump has made specious claims about voter fraud for decades, but since his 2020 election loss and the 2021 Capitol riot, he has pushed the issue to the center of Republican politics.
Even though voter fraud is exceedingly rare, nearly every speech of Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign included false claims that noncitizens were voting in American elections. He also railed against mail voting, even as Republican groups successfully pushed more of the party’s voters to cast ballots that way.
Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, a conservative advocacy group tied to the activist Leonard Leo, said the executive order was simply enforcing laws already passed by Congress. He referred to a ruling from a federal appeals court that found that Congress’s selection of a federal Election Day meant all voting must be completed by that day, with no late-arriving ballots permitted.
“The executive order is acting well within the four corners of those existing laws, so we’re not breaking new ground in terms of legal authority,” Mr. Snead said. “We’re not breaking new ground in terms of the relationship between the federal government and the states.”
News
Judge Tosses Citizenship Law Aimed at New Voters in New Hampshire
A federal judge has struck down a New Hampshire law that blocked new voters from using a sworn affidavit to prove their citizenship in the absence of official documents such as a birth certificate or passport.
The decision, filed late Thursday by Judge Samantha D. Elliott of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, found that “eliminating the affidavits” as a means of proving citizenship “constitutes an unjustifiable burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and 14th Amendments.” The ruling immediately overturned the law, which was passed in 2024 and signed by the Republican governor at the time, Chris Sununu.
A spokesman for New Hampshire’s Justice Department said the state intended to appeal the decision.
The law “represents a common-sense approach to voter registration and election administration designed to protect the integrity of our elections,” the spokesman, Michael Garrity, said in a statement on Friday.
The law, which created some of the strictest voter registration requirements in the country, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire on behalf of several groups, including the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire.
“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate,” Henry Klementowicz, the state A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement. “This law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot.”
Reports of wrongful voting in the state did not decline after the law’s passage, Judge Elliott noted, with a similar number of reports filed with the state attorney general in the year before the law was passed, and the year after.
The push for proof of citizenship has been at the core of Republican-backed efforts to change voting rules, ever since President Trump and his allies began promoting baseless conspiracy theories over the past decade that there has been widespread voter fraud by noncitizens.
Mr. Trump put documentary proof of citizenship at the center of his effort to change the country’s voting laws last year. He first signed an executive order in March 2025 that partly sought to establish such a requirement for federal elections, but that provision of the order was rejected by federal courts.
Republicans in Congress then took up the charge, making documentary proof of citizenship central to their federal voting legislation, known as the SAVE America Act. But the measure has stalled in Congress, where Republicans do not have enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster of the bill.
With the bill in limbo, Mr. Trump has threatened not to sign any other legislation until Republicans reform the filibuster to pass it, a procedural move known as the “nuclear option.” But his threats have not moved many Republicans to make the move.
There is no evidence of widespread voting by noncitizens, and the Trump administration’s efforts to prove these conspiracies are not succeeding: Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked by the beginning of 2026, the Department of Homeland Security referred around 0.02 percent of the names for further investigation. Any actual proven cases are likely to be a fraction of that fraction.
Even before the new law was passed, New Hampshire’s voting access had been more limited than most states’. It did not offer early in-person voting, or registration by mail for most voters. And it removed inactive voters after four years. More than 195,000 voters were removed in 2021 alone, according to a summary of evidence in the 100-page court decision.
New Hampshire does offer same-day registration on Election Day, an option that was used by voters some 350,000 times from 2016 to 2024, witnesses testified.
Under the law that was struck down, voters who showed up to register could present a birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers “or any other reasonable documentation.” But they could no longer, as an alternative, sign an affidavit stating they were 18, a resident of the municipality they were voting in and a citizen of the United States.
“It may be tempting for some to describe the Qualified Voter Affidavit as an exception to the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but it is not,” Judge Elliott wrote in her decision. “A sworn affidavit capable of exposing an affiant to criminal prosecution is a method of proving citizenship.”
“Moreover,” she added, “the evidence shows that it is the only method of proof available to a significant number of New Hampshire voters.”
Experts testified in a trial this year that 5,000 to 30,000 residents in the state did not have documentary proof of citizenship. They said that 14,700 voters had used the affidavit option to register to vote from April to November of 2024.
News
Which first lady feared her husband might be having a stroke? The quiz knows
From left: Jeff Bezos, Roland Garros, Jill Biden.
Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images; Branger/Getty Images/Hulton Archive; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
This week, the pope took a stand on artificial intelligence in an encyclical Google Gemini called “historic and highly ambitious” and an “aggressive, uncompromising critique.” Thanks, Gemini! Enjoy the quiz, y’all.
News
Becerra leads governor’s race, with Hilton and Steyer in tight contest for second spot, poll finds
On the cusp of California’s gubernatorial June 2 primary, a poll shows voters are closely divided among three candidates vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom at a perilous moment in history for the state and the nation.
Among likely California voters, 25% support Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former Biden Cabinet secretary, according to the survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and released Thursday. Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator and British political strategist, has the backing of 21%, while 19% backed billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental activist Tom Steyer, a Democrat.
California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra takes a selfie while campaigning Tuesday at an event in San Francisco.
(Benjamin Fanjoy / Getty Images)
The survey provided the clearest indication yet that the three have separated themselves from the rest of the field. Support increased for Becerra, Hilton and Steyer since the last Berkeley IGS poll in March. Becerra leapfrogged everyone. In early March, he wallowed near the bottom of the pack at just 5% support among likely voters, and now is the front-runner.
The other candidates floundered. Support for Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, dropped 5%, and he now finds himself in a distant fourth place. Former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine dropped by almost half to 7%. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — all Democrats — remained mired in the single digits.
Poll director Mark DiCamillo cautioned that it remains unclear which candidates will finish in first and second place in the June 2 primary, a pivotal question since only the top two finishers will advance to the November general election regardless of party affiliation. The low voter turnout thus far makes predicting the outcome especially difficult.
Although every registered voter in California was sent a mail-in ballot, many have not returned them or dropped them off at voting locations — a telltale sign of the uncertain nature of this year’s governor’s race. The survey, which included all 61 of the gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, found that Democratic turnout thus far is noticeably lower compared with past primary elections, DiCamillo said.
Steve Hilton arrives for a news conference at the San Jose Diridon rail station on Tuesday.
(Jason Henry/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“We’re assuming that … the Democrats will in fact turn out in the final week after we had concluded our poll and begin to make up ground on what looks like an early lead for Hilton, and those voters favor Becerra,” DiCamillo said.
The survey, conducted between May 19 and 24, found that likely Democratic voters favored Becerra over Steyer by 11 percentage points. Voters registered as “no party preference” were evenly divided among Becerra, Steyer and Hilton. Among likely Republican voters, Hilton led Bianco by almost 2 to 1.
Becerra also had a notable edge over Steyer among women and Latino voters, while Steyer had an advantage among Black voters. Hilton was favored over the two Democrats among self-identified libertarians and among voters in Orange County, the Central Valley and northern coast and Sierra region.
The poll found that 7% of voters remained undecided.
For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, the contest to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy has consistently lacked a front-runner despite a plethora of candidates.
Two of California’s best-known Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, both toyed with a run for governor before deciding not to run, which contributed to the sluggishness of the race. The 2026 campaign for governor also languished in the shadow of the mayhem stirred up by President Trump, including his immigration raids throughout Southern California, and the devastation wrought by the 2025 Pacific Palisades and Altadena wildfires.
But a whirlwind of recent developments has drawn attention to the race.
Former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), once a front-runner in the contest, withdrew from the race and resigned from Congress in the aftermath of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault that he denies.
Tom Steyer takes part in a campaign event in Santa Rosa on Wednesday.
(David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Additionally, record-breaking amounts of money have flowed into the race. Steyer has smashed state self-funding records by contributing $212 million to his campaign as of Tuesday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. Nearly $85 million has been donated to independent expenditure committees by corporations, labor unions, tech titans, Native American tribes and other special interests, most of which will have policy interests that will be in front of the next governor.
Although the 2026 California governor’s race lacks the allure of recent contests that featured candidates such as global movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger, political scion Jerry Brown and former San Francisco mayor and likely 2028 presidential candidate Gavin Newsom, it is unfolding at a crucial time for Californians.
The state’s most vulnerable residents are facing severe reductions to medical care because of looming federal healthcare funding cuts, and California’s budget, already volatile because of its reliance on the state’s wealthiest residents, may grow more unpredictable. California’s highest-in-the-nation gas prices increased even more because of the U.S.-Iran war, adding to the state’s entrenched affordability crisis, which has driven many residents out of the state.
The cost of living, homelessness and public safety were among the top concerns expressed by voters, according to the poll. Protecting voting rights was also supported by most voters, though their underlying concerns could be starkly different based on their political views.
Democrats have been focused on the disenfranchisement of voters, a fear that has heightened in the aftermath of a recent Supreme Court decision that gutted a section of the Voting Rights Act that forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress. Republicans echo President Trump’s claims of elections being rigged.
Chad Bianco is interviewed May 6 after the gubernatorial debate at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Voters split largely along party lines about issues such as Trump’s policies about climate change, immigration and taxes.
Voters’ uncertainty in the governor’s race is partly driven by California’s unique, voter-approved “jungle” primary system, in which the two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.
Although the state’s voters are largely registered Democrats, the party’s leaders feared earlier this year that they would splinter among the multiple Democrats on the ballot, leading to Hilton and Bianco advancing to the November general election and ensuring that a Republican would be elected governor. Bianco had the backing of 11% in the new Berkeley survey.
The Republicans were once roughly tied in polls, until Trump endorsed Hilton in April. More than one-third of likely Republican voters said Trump’s endorsement of Hilton made them more likely to support him. Among voters who identified with the “Make America Great Again” movement, nearly two-thirds supported Hilton while less than 3 in 10 backed Bianco.
Though Bianco’s followers seem to be more passionate, “Hilton has got the much broader base of support, and then he got Trump’s endorsement,” DiCamillo said.
He added that Hilton’s rise is unusual in California, where statewide candidates typically spend enormous sums of money to raise their visibility among the state’s 23.1 million registered voters.
“What’s interesting about Hilton is that he hasn’t really done much of his campaigning in the traditional way. He hasn’t run huge amounts of television advertising, you don’t see his name out there in the traditional media, other than in free media,” DiCamillo said. “You can see that in the data, because almost a third of voters still have no opinion of Hilton … about what it was back in March, which is startling for a candidate who is among the leaders.”
Democrats’ fear of being locked out of the November general election led party leaders and allies to effectively urge low-polling candidates to drop out of the race in remarkable public statements in March.
The tables have since turned — the prospect of two Republicans winning the top spots in the June primary appear nonexistent, while polling shows a small possibility of two Democrats advancing to the general election.
“I’m not saying it’s likely, but it’s possible that two Democrats could emerge, and that would have huge implications on turnout in the [November] election,” DiCamillo said, pointing to California congressional races that could shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives. “If you don’t have a Republican at the top of the ticket, it would be dismal for the Republicans’ chances.”
The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoMan arrested for multiple Los Angeles freeway shootings: CHP
-
Detroit, MI2 hours ago
Archdiocese of Detroit’s list of parishes chosen for halted Masses grows
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoGiants reassign 3B coach Borg; Wotus named interim replacement
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoVigil honors victims of Dallas apartment explosion that killed three and injured five
-
Miami, FL2 hours ago
Miami kosher, Mutra, restaurant earns Michelin star | The Jerusalem Post
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoRed Sox outfielder Roman Anthony suffers another injury setback
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver weather: Warm weather to end May
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoSeattle City Council proposal would use street closures to curb gun violence