Judge will hear arguments as groups try to block Trump's elections order

Apnews - Apr 17th, 2025

A federal judge is set to hear arguments in three pivotal cases challenging President Donald Trump's executive order on federal elections. The order, which mandates proof of citizenship for voter registration and other changes, is being contested by national Democrats and voting rights groups as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs, including the Democratic National Committee and the League of Women Voters, argue that Trump's directive oversteps presidential authority and violates the Constitution, which assigns election regulation power to states and Congress. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will evaluate requests for a preliminary injunction to block the order during the ongoing lawsuits.

The legal challenge comes amid heightened scrutiny of election processes and ongoing lawsuits against Trump's order, with 19 Democratic attorneys general and states like Washington and Oregon having already filed suits. The implications of this legal battle are significant, as it centers on the balance of power in election administration and could influence future federal election regulations. The hearing will address key issues such as the standing of plaintiffs and the legality of presidential intervention in election processes, setting the stage for potential legal precedence in federal election oversight.

Donald Trump Democratic National Committee Voter Registration Constitutional Law League Of Women Voters Federal Elections U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and timely overview of the legal challenges to President Trump's executive order on election processes. It accurately reports on the key provisions of the order and the constitutional arguments being made against it. The use of reputable sources and expert commentary adds credibility, though the inclusion of a broader range of perspectives could enhance balance and engagement. The article is well-structured and accessible, making it informative for readers interested in election law and governance. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of legal processes and potential implications to fully inform the public about the stakes involved. Overall, the article is a reliable source of information on a significant and evolving issue, though there is room for deeper analysis and more comprehensive coverage of differing viewpoints.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on the legal challenges to President Trump's executive order regarding election processes. The requirement for proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and the mandate for mail ballots to be received by Election Day are correctly stated, aligning with the executive order's provisions. The article also accurately outlines the plaintiffs' arguments that the executive order is unconstitutional, given that election administration is typically a state power, not a presidential one. However, the story could improve by providing more detailed citations or direct references to the text of the executive order and relevant legal statutes to enhance verifiability.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both the plaintiffs challenging the executive order and the legal expert Justin Levitt, who provides context on constitutional authority. However, it lacks direct input from representatives of the Trump administration or supporters of the executive order, which could have provided a more balanced view of the issue. Additionally, while the article mentions pending lawsuits from Democratic attorneys general, it does not explore potential counterarguments or defenses from Trump's legal team, which would have offered a more comprehensive range of viewpoints.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language to convey the complex legal issues surrounding the executive order. The logical flow of information helps readers understand the sequence of events and the arguments presented by both sides. The tone is neutral, avoiding sensationalism and focusing on factual reporting. However, a more detailed explanation of legal terms and processes could further improve comprehension for readers unfamiliar with election law.

Source quality

The article relies on reputable sources such as the Associated Press, known for its journalistic standards and credibility. It also includes expert commentary from Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department attorney, which adds authority to the analysis of constitutional issues. However, the article could benefit from a wider variety of sources, including legal scholars or election officials, to provide a more nuanced understanding of the implications of the executive order and the legal challenges it faces.

Transparency

While the article provides a clear overview of the legal challenges and the executive order's provisions, it lacks detailed methodology or explanations of the legal processes involved. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or funding sources for the plaintiffs, which could affect perceptions of impartiality. Including more information about the legal basis for the challenges and the potential outcomes of the lawsuits would enhance transparency and help readers understand the context and stakes involved.