'Voter I.D. Must Be Essential to Every Single Vote. Absolutely no exceptions!' declared President Donald Trump as he committed to unleash another executive order on the matter.
On August 30, President Trump announced his intention to make waves again in the realm of federal election regulations by promising to enforce voter ID requirements.
“Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. No exceptions!” Trump asserted in a post on Truth Social, driving his message home with an emphatic, “I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!”
Revisiting his earlier calls to eliminate mail-in ballots, he reiterated a stance that has proven controversial, although he did not specify whether this would also be part of his forthcoming executive action.
“Moreover, No Mail-In Voting, Except for Those Who Are Very Ill and the Distant Military. Use paper ballots only!!!” he stated.
This push, reminiscent of his previous calls for mail-in ballot restrictions, raises questions about the extent of his presidential authority, as states traditionally govern their own electoral processes.
Voter ID
Voter ID laws have stirred controversy at the national level for years, with the debate often becoming a flashpoint in political discourse.
Currently, states are divided in their approach to this issue. Some impose strict regulations requiring photo identification, while others offer some leeway, allowing alternative forms of ID. Several states even dispense with ID requirements altogether.
Proponents like Trump and other Republicans tout voter ID laws as a rational means to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in federal elections, asserting that such requirements can mitigate potential fraud.
Conversely, critics—predominantly Democrats—argue these regulations disproportionately hinder access to the polls for marginalized communities, particularly due to the costs associated with obtaining an ID.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) previously voiced concerns that voter ID laws might suppress turnout among low-income, minority, and Democratic voters.
Supporters of ID laws often point out that photo identification is a norm in various spheres of life, from driving to purchasing alcohol.
What the Constitution Says
Historically, states have enjoyed wide latitude in determining the conduct of both state and federal elections. Nonetheless, certain federal statutes, including the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, set boundaries on this discretion.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution empowers states to decide the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, although Congress retains the authority to legislate on these matters.
Experts have cautioned against Trump overstepping his authority, casting doubt on whether he can unilaterally implement sweeping changes to election law without legislative approval.
“The President has no power to dictate to states how they conduct national elections,” remarked Rick Pildes, a political science professor at New York University, when discussing Trump's propositions.
Realistically, Congress would need to pass any substantial reforms, a process currently hindered by a stalemate in the Senate over proof of citizenship requirements for voting.
In April, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, mandating documents to confirm citizenship status for voter registration. However, it languishes in the Senate, requiring a coalition of at least seven Democrats to breach the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
Post-house passage of the bill, Schumer characterized it as an “outrage,” suggesting it would effectively disenfranchise millions of American citizens while complicating automatic voter registration initiatives.
Previous Actions
In March, Trump earlier enacted an executive order aimed at enforcing photo ID requirements during voting, framing the initiative as a protection for “free, fair, and honest elections” against perceived threats of fraud and discrepancies.
“The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is crucial to determining the rightful winner of an election,” he stated in the order.
Trump asserted that certain states have allowed the registration of non-citizens and criticized the Department of Justice for not sufficiently addressing the matter.
Legal Challenges
Litigation has impeded Trump’s previous reforms to election laws, with courts exhibiting skepticism about his ability to mandate such changes.
In April, the Democratic Party challenged the executive order in court, which resulted in a temporary injunction against its proof-of-citizenship requirements.
Representatives from the Elias Law Group, who represented the Democrats, contended that the order would “disenfranchise eligible voters by imposing unnecessary barriers to voter registration.”
“The Constitution could not be clearer—it’s Congress and the states, not the President, who determine how federal elections are conducted,” asserted a representative from the firm.
In June, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper issued a preliminary injunction against the order, siding with a coalition of 19 attorneys general who had initiated legal action. Initially, she imposed a nationwide ban, but following a Supreme Court ruling in June limiting such injunctions, the order was amended to only apply to the states involved in the lawsuit.
As for Trump’s latest proposed action, it remains to be seen how it will unfold, particularly given the existing legal challenges surrounding his earlier executive order.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our inaugural edition debuted 25 years ago from a modest Atlanta basement. Today, The Epoch Times delivers fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have faced threats, arrest, and violence, yet our commitment to independent journalism remains steadfast. This year marks a quarter-century of reporting unencumbered by corporate or political influence.
As a gesture of our appreciation, we invite you to seize a limited-time introductory offer—just $1 per week—to join millions who already celebrate independent news.
