new rule<\/a> implements parts of Trump\u2019s executive order by requiring a new design for mail ballots and the envelopes they go in, as well as procedures for how data are collected from them by the federal government.<\/p>\nBonta said his office expects to sue again within days. He expects a lower court will block the Trump-ordered changes again, and for that ruling to stand through November. He said if the high court does weigh in again before the midterms, he expects it to acknowledge that the president has no authority to dictate election policy.<\/p>\n
Dean Logan, registrar-recorder and county clerk for Los Angeles County, also said the issue is far from settled.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs we approach the issuance of the first ballots for the November General Election, it is important to recognize that these regulations are still subject to active litigation and interpretation,\u201d Logan said in a statement to The Times. \u201cIn response, we will intensify our voter outreach and educational initiatives to ensure individuals are fully informed and aware of any adjustments to the voting process.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court found in part that the lower court order blocking the agencies from working toward Trump\u2019s order was invalid because that work had yet to cause any harm to the states that sued, including California.<\/p>\n
It wrote that Trump\u2019s executive order \u201cis internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch.\u201d<\/p>\n
About 30% of the nation\u2019s voters \u2014 and 80% of Californians \u2014 cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Trump, however, has long maintained that voting by mail leads to fraud, including voting by noncitizens. <\/p>\n
With the court\u2019s ruling Monday, Homeland Security may compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are 18 and over and eligible to vote. However, California and other states \u201care not required to use the Lists,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration has acknowledged potential law enforcement applications for the lists and warned state election officials across the country that they could face legal consequences if they don\u2019t work to ensure that noncitizens aren\u2019t able to vote in their elections.<\/p>\n
Such warnings from the administration were mentioned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent as evidence of the harm suffered by the states already, and reason for the lower court\u2019s ruling halting implementation to hold.<\/p>\n
She wrote that the administration has acknowledged that a state\u2019s \u201crefusal to consider\u201d the Homeland Security lists \u201ccould conceivably, depending on the circumstances, be relevant evidence of an intent to violate, or to facilitate the violation of, the federal laws prohibiting non-citizen voting.\u201d <\/p>\n
She also made the limits of the majority\u2019s ruling clear. <\/p>\n
\u201cToday\u2019s decision does not address whether the President\u2019s attempts to interfere with States\u2019 administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,\u201d Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. \u201cNor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President\u2019s directives. Instead, today\u2019s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her own dissent, also noted the limits of the majority\u2019s ruling and criticized it for failing \u201cto explain when, exactly, is the right time to bring a meritorious election-rule claim challenging unconstitutional interference with electoral processes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jackson wrote that the ruling \u201cneedlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections. It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s executive order said it was aimed at \u201censuring citizenship verification\u201d in federal elections. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued a few days later and said Trump sought to use the Postal Service to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. They also argued the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate elections, not the president. <\/p>\n
A federal judge in Boston and the 1st Circuit Court agreed with the challengers and blocked Trump\u2019s executive order from taking effect for the November elections.<\/p>\n
The case on appeal was Trump vs. California <\/a>because Bonta was a leader of the Democratic state attorneys who sued. <\/p>\nLogan, of Los Angeles County, said the Trump administration\u2019s \u201congoing efforts to modify the electoral process amid an election cycle are deeply troubling and frustrating,\u201d and that one of the \u201cmost significant risks we face\u201d as a result is \u201cthe possibility of voter confusion and diminished participation \u2014 outcomes that run counter to the principles of free and fair elections.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOur team is dedicated to minimizing any adverse effects on voters, and we will work diligently to safeguard their ability to make their voices heard and ensure their votes are properly recorded,\u201d Logan said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON \u00a0\u2014\u00a0The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Trump to continue seeking new limits on the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":201022,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[2],"tags":[544,3198,2744,12,48412,883,88639,78475,886,6032,64,885,536,74,25785,512],"class_list":["post-201021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-donald-trump","tag-california","tag-citizenship","tag-decision","tag-donald-trump","tag-effect","tag-election","tag-emergency-appeal","tag-mail-ballot","tag-november","tag-order","tag-president-trump","tag-state","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump","tag-use","tag-year"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@people\/117154279782235821","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201021\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}