“Unconstitutional, Antidemocratic, and Un-American”

Last week, we wrote that President Trump’s executive order that seeks to take power over elections was unconstitutional. This week, a coalition of 19 state attorneys general sued the Trump administration, emphasizing that point.

“The President’s constitutional role in elections is limited to competing in them and enforcing election laws enacted by Congress,” the attorneys general wrote in the first sentence of their lawsuit. Later, they added that the Constitution is clear about who has the power to regulate elections: “The States have primary responsibility,” they wrote.

They go on to list ways that Trump’s order is not only unconstitutional but also simply impractical. If implemented, the states would have to completely revamp their election administration systems, train and re-train their staff, and shoulder duplicative and unnecessary burdens. State election systems are led by experienced professionals, who follow state and federal law. States regularly revise their systems to keep them up to date and to the highest standards. But they do that on their own schedule, according to their local laws, needs, and resources. Asking states to reshuffle their systems now—when some are preparing for elections as soon as next week—would require them to divert already limited resources away from crucial election integrity and administration work.

It’s also worth repeating that the executive order is based on lies and conspiracy theories about elections. No matter what Trump claims, the fact remains that American elections are fair, secure, and accurate. That’s been possible because of the hard work of state officials, who run elections in ways that make the most sense for their state’s voters.

“For all these reasons, the [executive order] is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American,” the attorneys general wrote.

This lawsuit is the latest example of our nation’s system of checks and balances at work. The Constitution distributes power between branches of government and between the federal and state governments to protect the American people from this kind of overreach.

When they were sworn into office, state attorneys general took an oath to defend the constitutions of the United States and of their state—and that’s exactly what they’re doing.

➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts about Federal Overreach of States’ Authority to Administer Election

This Week in Democracy

• Nineteen states, led by the attorneys general of Nevada, Massachusetts, and California, filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order that tried to unlawfully seize power over elections. Several other groups also challenged the unconstitutional order. “The Trump Administration’s executive order on elections is an unlawful attempt to grab power,” Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar said about the case. “The Constitution is clear: the states are responsible for administering elections.”

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts about Federal Overreach of States’ Authority to Administer Elections

• Trump told reporters that “there are methods” that would allow him to serve a third term as president, even though the Constitution prohibits anyone from being elected more than twice.
• A judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from canceling more than $11 billion in federal funds for states’ public health departments after 24 state attorneys general sued. “Not only do our public research institutions rely on [funding from the National Institutes of Health] for their groundbreaking research, job creation and academic competitiveness, but our residents depend on these studies to propel lifesaving medical advancements,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About Unlawful Attempts to Freeze Federal Funds

• A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore millions in grant funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to states. 23 state attorneys general told the judge last week that more than 215 grants to at least 19 states were frozen or inaccessible, despite an earlier court order that required federal funds to be released.
• The Trump administration threatened to deny funds for public schools to states unless state education officials comply with its policy priorities—even though the administration claims it wants to “return education to the states.” (States already have the responsibility and authority to oversee curricula and other day-to-day school operations, not the federal government.) It’s the administration’s latest action to reshape the federal and state governments’ partnership over education.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About State Authority and Education

• Wisconsin and Florida held elections on Tuesday. In Wisconsin, Judge Susan Crawford won the race for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court, defeating Judge Brad Schimel, who was supported by Trump. “You gotta accept the results,” Schimel said in his concession address.

  In Florida, Randy Fine and Jimmy Patronis, a state senator and the state’s chief financial officer, respectively, each won a special election for a seat in the U.S. House.

State of the States

In Pennsylvania, a group of former state officials led by States United filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the state Supreme Court. The officials asked the court to uphold a lower court’s ruling that it violates the state constitution to reject a mail-in ballot if the voter forgot to write the date or wrote the wrong date.

The officials point out that handwritten dates are not used to verify whether a ballot was mailed on time. State election officials verify that independently. “Enforcing the dating provisions to reject mail ballots has only one effect: needlessly disenfranchising Pennsylvanians,” they wrote.

In a separate case, a federal judge ruled that improperly dated ballots can’t be rejected. “[T]here is no evidence that the date requirement serves any state interest,” the judge wrote. The Republican National Committee and other Republican Party groups appealed the decision.

➡️ READ: More about the brief

In North Carolina, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled that more than 65,000 voters whose 2024 votes are being challenged must prove their eligibility to vote within 15 days. If they don’t, their votes will not be counted in the 2024 race for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Judge Jefferson Griffin is challenging the voters’ eligibilities in an effort to overturn his 734-vote loss. The case is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Celebrating Women’s History Month

This Monday marked the end of Women’s History Month. We’re honoring the leadership and contributions of women across the country that make democracy possible. From elected officials to poll workers and everyone in between, women play a critical role in defending the rule of law. And as States United CEO Joanna Lydgate wrote last year, our democracy is only as strong as our support for the women who protect it.

You can read a few shoutouts from our team on LinkedIn.