As part of his wide-ranging use of executive orders, President Donald Trump turned his attention to state election administration, a move that quickly prompted voting rights groups and others to promise lawsuits.
The order seeks to compel states to require proof of citizenship to vote and takes aim at mail-in balloting in states that allow ballots to arrive after Election Day to be counted.
Critics say a provision requiring documentary proof of citizenship would disenfranchise millions of legal voters, including the majority of married women who adopted their spouse’s surname, as the name on the identification would not match the birth certificate.
Since 2016, Trump has pushed unfounded conspiracy theories about elections, which only increased after he lost to Joe Biden in the 2020 elections.
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and, even when it does happen, is often caught before the votes are tabulated.
The executive order said the federal government would withhold federal funds for states that do not comply.
A spokesman for the New Mexico Secretary of State told NM Political Report Tuesday that the office was still digging into the executive order.
“It is important to emphasize, though, that elections are the constitutional purview of the states, except for narrowly focused congressional actions,” Secretary of State spokesman Alex Curtas said. “The public should anticipate legal efforts to oppose this executive order.”
Curtas said the SOS’ office is “working closely with the New Mexico Department of Justice to analyze the impact of this executive order on New Mexico’s voters and election administrators.”
Wednesday, the League of Women Voters of the United States slammed the executive order, with the group’s CEO Celina Stewart calling it “an assault on our republic and a dangerous attempt to silence American voters.”
The group’s chief counsel, Marcia Johnson, said the order is “plainly unlawful.”
“The League is committed to working with our partners and legal advocates to pursue all avenues in fighting back against this dangerous order, and we will use every tool at our disposal to defend voters from unjust restrictions on their freedom to vote,” Johnson said.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the executive order “a significant overreach of executive power” that “poses a direct threat to the fundamental right to vote.”
“We will do everything in our power to stop this unconstitutional attack on the right to vote to ensure that every eligible American can participate in our democracy,” ACLU Voting Rights Project Director Sophia Lin Lakin said. “We will see President Trump in court.”
I can understand the opposition to this. But do you really think if it happened that all married women who changed their last name would not be able to vote? You seriously believe that would be the case?
Again, it’s completely understandable to be opposed to this concept, but people are being hysterical if they believe that married women would no longer be able to vote if they changed their last name.
Easy solution – don’t change your last name!
NOT a solution AT ALL. Many women, if not MOST, have already long ago changed their last names. I certainly did, decades ago. My maiden name is my middle name now.
Your report is the most disgusting abuse of NM legislative over reach in the entire country. Abide by the landslide mandate of the American voting public to respect our constitution and its bylaws, show your citizenship when you vote. (HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR MARRIED NAME…WHAT A LIE!) and I guarantee NM will get their millions from the feds. Quit posting these flagrant lies about the administrations “abuse of powers”! No illegals should be allowed to vote in ANY election in the United States! Reply to me if you are in any way a legitimate news source. I will be happy to post your reply to New Mexico.
The only people who put out such falsehoods are the ones encouraging voter fraud. Proof of citizenship is simple and paramount to legal voting!
Our state enforced the Real-ID but this is now a problem? Yes, there ia a line between federal and state powers but it only seems to matter to one side in cases like this. Voting is a right reserved only for citizens, and the Supreme Court has never ruled that verifying citizenship is unconstitutional. What matters is how it’s implemented, not that it’s required.
If someone is legally a citizen, including married women who’ve changed their last name, it’s laughable to say they’d be disenfranchised. That’s what marriage certificates and Social Security verifications are for. These are standard documents used every day in legal processes like getting passports and real IDs.
The ACLU and League of Women Voters routinely oppose any election integrity measures under the banner of ‘voter suppression.’ Yet they offer no evidence that legal voters can’t meet these requirements. To suggest so even seems to be an insult to the competency of these groups.
Trump doesn’t have the power to issue this order. The U.S. Constitution gives states the ability to regulate the “time, place and manner” of elections but allows Congress to override those laws. It gives no power to the president to do so.