President Donald Trump, in pursuit of election security and integrity across America, has issued an executive order requiring voter identification, so that foreigners are not choosing the nation’s leaders and setting its monetary, social and foreign policies.
Specifically, he called for a list from the Department of Homeland Security of U.S. citizens in each state, prosecutions of state officials who issue ballots to ineligible people and provisions that the postal service not deliver ballots to those who are not eligible to vote.
But that’s “legally indefensible,” according to a court filing from a coalition of states insisting that they be allowed to run their security-suspect systems as they want.
According to a report at Scotusblog, which documents actions and results of the nation’s Supreme Court, lawyers for a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia are urging the justices to let them ignore the security provisions in the executive order.
“A federal court in Boston earlier barred the federal government from applying those security measures in those states, and they now are arguing that the lower court’s order be left intact,” the report said.
The executive order, they claim, would let “the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.”
There are 23 states in the coalition, the report said, led by California and the District of Columbia.
They are claiming that the states have the only power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections.
Just a few days ago, New Jersey officials confessed that they had registered to vote 6,600 people not eligible to vote in the U.S., and about 400 of them already had participated by voting, illegally, in an election.
State officials claimed it was a software glitch, but the software company corrected them, confirming those ineligible to vote had been submitted to the state, which approved them.
It was a leftist judge in Boston, Indira Talwani, who barred the federal government from implementing the provisions before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states challenging the provisions.
That order immediately drew a protest from the federal government, which was joined by 12 states.
They asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the security provisions to move forward, but the court refused.
They then took the dispute to the Supreme Court, asking for an order blocking Talwani’s political agenda.
The report noted, “U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the dispute is not yet ripe because the agencies haven’t yet decided how they will implement the order.”
Further, he warned of “serious irreparable harm” if the security efforts are blocked.
The report noted, “The 12 states pointed to two recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the same executive order – one of which, they said, held that it is too early to challenge the EO, and the other of which allowed the executive order to be reinstated on th[at] same basis.’”
