Napa, California — In a bold move aimed at reshaping U.S. elections, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that would introduce sweeping changes to the country’s electoral process. Among the key provisions, the order mandates that voters provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. However, the full implementation of the order faces uncertainty, and it is almost certain to be challenged on constitutional grounds.
The executive order, which Trump signed in an effort to “enforce basic and necessary election protections,” also includes a stipulation that all ballots must be received by Election Day. In his remarks, Trump emphasized that the nation had “failed to enforce basic and necessary election protections” and called on states to cooperate with federal agencies in sharing voter lists and prosecuting election-related crimes. States that do not comply could face the threat of losing federal funding.
California, which has a relatively relaxed voting system, would see significant changes under the new order. Currently, the state only requires identification for first-time voters. Registration is typically done by mail, where voters can verify their citizenship, age, and residency using their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. If these details are missing, voters are required to bring identification, which can include documents such as a recent utility bill or a sample ballot booklet. Once registered, voters do not need to present any ID at polling places.
While this system in California may seem relatively simple, the executive order could introduce new complications. If enacted, it would require Californians to provide additional forms of identification or proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections, potentially causing confusion and delays at polling stations. Legal challenges to the order are already expected, with many experts pointing to the Constitution’s delegation of authority to states over election administration. Article I of the Constitution gives states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections, which could create a significant barrier to full federal intervention.
The potential impact of such a measure was illustrated by recent events in New Hampshire, where a new state law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote led to several voters being turned away. One such incident involved Brooke Yonge, a 45-year-old hair stylist, who was denied the ability to vote in a school election due to discrepancies between her birth certificate and driver’s license. Yonge had changed her last name after marriage, and the names on her official documents did not match. She eventually had to provide her marriage license to resolve the issue. Advocates for voting rights worry that similar laws could cause widespread confusion and disenfranchise certain groups of voters, particularly women who have changed their names after marriage.
The executive order, which Trump claims is necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud, also extends to concerns about mail-in voting. Despite a lack of evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud in mail-in voting, Trump has repeatedly attacked the practice, claiming it is insecure. While some states, including California, have embraced mail-in voting, the Trump administration has continued to cast doubt on its integrity, fueling further controversy ahead of the 2024 elections.
Across the country, numerous states have introduced or are considering legislation similar to the one endorsed by Trump’s executive order. These include Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Pennsylvania, all of which are among the 22 states considering laws that would require proof of citizenship to vote. The potential for a patchwork of state-level voter identification laws raises concerns about unequal access to the ballot box, particularly for minority communities and those without easy access to the required documentation.
Voting rights groups have expressed their concerns over the potential consequences of such policies. “This could have a devastating effect on voter turnout,” said a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “Requiring additional documentation, especially in states with large populations of voters who may not have easy access to official records, could create significant barriers.”
As the battle over election laws intensifies, the fate of Trump’s executive order remains uncertain. While some Republican lawmakers and conservative groups see it as a necessary step to secure elections, others warn it could undermine confidence in the voting system and disenfranchise large segments of the electorate. Legal challenges are expected to delay the implementation of the order, and it is unclear how state governments will respond to its provisions.
For now, the executive order has set the stage for a broader national conversation about election integrity, voter rights, and the balance of power between federal and state authorities in determining how elections are conducted. As states weigh their responses and prepare for potential legal battles, the future of U.S. elections could be shaped by these ongoing debates.