Judge oppose election integrity measures

 Federalist Wire:

...

President Donald Trump’s move to strengthen election integrity through an executive order mandating proof of citizenship for federal elections hit a roadblock on Friday. A federal judge in Massachusetts, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a ruling that temporarily halts the order, siding with states challenging its implementation. The decision has sparked fresh debate over the balance between securing elections and the practical burdens placed on state governments.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts argued that states have a strong case in their legal challenges to the president’s order. “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote in her ruling, emphasizing that election oversight traditionally falls to the states. Her decision casts doubt on the immediate enforceability of Trump’s directive, which aimed to ensure only U.S. citizens participate in federal elections.

The executive order, signed by President Trump in March, was a cornerstone of his administration’s commitment to restoring trust in the electoral process. It requires documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections, a measure championed by Republicans as essential to preventing noncitizen voting. The order also directs the attorney general to crack down on election crimes, ensures foreign nationals cannot donate to federal campaigns, and prohibits organizations receiving federal funds from engaging in lobbying activities.

Casper’s ruling highlighted the states’ concerns about the logistical challenges of implementing the new requirements. She noted that the changes would impose “significant efforts and substantial costs” on states to update their voter registration procedures. This argument resonated with Democratic attorneys general from 19 states who filed a lawsuit in April, contending that the order oversteps federal authority and creates unnecessary hurdles for election administration.

The Trump administration’s executive action also took aim at what it calls “Bidenbucks,” a term referring to the previous administration’s alleged efforts to partner federal agencies with private groups for get-out-the-vote initiatives. By rescinding these measures, Trump’s order seeks to eliminate perceived partisan influences in voter mobilization efforts. The administration argues that such partnerships blurred the lines between neutral election administration and political activism.
...

While I disagree with the Judge's order, Congress should pass a similar law on election integrity. Texas already has similar measures in place, which suggests Casper's argument is not sound.