Attorney General Aaron M. Frey Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order Seeking to Impose Sweeping Voting Restrictions
MAINE, April 4 - Back to current news.
Attorney General Aaron M. Frey Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order Seeking to Impose Sweeping Voting Restrictions
April 4, 2025
Attorney Generals Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Danna Hayes
Danna.hayes@maine.gov
Attorney General Aaron M. Frey Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order Seeking to Impose Sweeping Voting Restrictions
Lawsuit asserts that voting restrictions are not authorized by U.S. Constitution or Congress
AUGUSTA — Attorney General Aaron M. Frey today joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the federal Election Assistance Commission, and other Trump Administration officials over Executive Order No. 14248 (the Elections Executive Order), an unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions across the country. Among other things, the Elections Executive Order attempts to conscript State election officials in the President’s campaign to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements when Americans seek to register to vote. It also seeks to upend common-sense, well-established State procedures for counting ballots — procedures that make it easier for peoples’ voices to be heard.
The President has no constitutional power to rewrite State election laws by decree, nor does the President have the authority to modify the rules Congress has created for elections. The coalition’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, explains that the power to regulate elections is reserved to the States and Congress, and that therefore, the Elections Executive Order is ultra vires, beyond the scope of presidential power, and violative of the separation of powers. The attorneys general ask the court to block the challenged provisions of the Elections Executive Order and declare them unconstitutional and void.
“The right to vote is a cornerstone of our free society and the President is acting without any authority by trying to dictate election law,” said Attorney General Frey. “If the President and his administration have their way, Mainers will have a harder time casting their ballot.”
In their lawsuit, the attorneys general assert that provisions of the Elections Executive Order will cause imminent and irreparable harm to the States if they are not enjoined. The challenged provisions include:
- Forcing the Election Assistance Commission (the Commission) to require documentary proof of citizenship on the Federal mail registration form (the Federal Form). The Commission is an independent, bipartisan, four-member body established by Congress. It is responsible for developing the Federal Form, in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, for the registration of voters for elections for Federal office. In their lawsuit, the attorneys general underscore that Congress has never required documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote using the Federal Form.
- Commanding the head of each state-designated Federal voter registration agency to immediately begin “assess[ing] citizenship prior to providing a Federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs.” This aspect of the Elections Executive Order commandeers State agencies and their personnel, forcing States to participate in the President’s unlawful and unnecessary agenda.
- Requiring military and overseas voters to submit documentary proof of citizenship and eligibility to vote in state elections. The Federal Post Card Application form is used by voters in the military or living abroad to register to vote in federal elections. Federal law unequivocally grants them the ability to register and cast a ballot “in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States” — there is no requirement that this form demand documentary proof of citizenship or proof of current eligibility to vote in a particular state.
- Forcing States to alter their ballot counting laws to exclude “absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day.” Consistent with federal law, members of the multistate coalition have exercised their constitutional and statutory authority to determine how to best receive and count votes that are timely cast by mail in federal elections. Many of the Plaintiff States provide for the counting of timely absentee and mail ballots received after Election Day.
- Threatening to withhold various streams of federal funding to the States for purported noncompliance with the challenged provisions. In so doing, the Elections Executive Order seeks to control Plaintiff States’ exercise of their sovereign powers through raw Executive domination, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and its underlying principles of federalism and the separation of powers.
In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Frey joins the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The litigation was led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford.
###
Related Documents
Distribution channels:
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Submit your press release