19 states leaders continue to block the order of Trump’s elections, claiming that it is unconstitutional

Washington (AP) – Democratic leaders in 19 states have taken legal action against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape the elections through the United States, calling it as an unconstitutional invasion of the clear authority of the States to organize their own elections.

The trial is the fourth against the executive decree published only a week ago. He seeks to block the key aspects, including new requirements that people provide documentary evidence of citizenship when registering to vote and the request that all voting ballots are received on the day of the ballot.

Find out more: Trump signs an action demanding proof of citizenship for voters, other measures revising the US elections

“The president does not have the power to do all of this,” wrote the prosecutor general of the State in court documents. “The EO elections are unconstitutional, undemocratic and non -American.”

Trump’s order said the United States had “applied the protection of basic and necessary elections.” Electoral officials said recent elections were among the safest in American history. There was no indication of generalized fraud, especially when Trump lost against Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

Order is the culmination of Trump’s long -standing complaints on how the American elections are managed. After his first victory in 2016, Trump falsely said that his total popular vote would have been much higher without “millions of people who voted illegally”. In 2020, Trump blamed a “fake” election for his loss and falsely demanded electoral fraud and the manipulation of voting machines.

Trump argued that his order guarantees the vote against illegal voting by non-citizens, although several studies and investigations in the United States have shown that it is rare.

He has received praise from the main electoral officials in certain republican states who say that this could inhibit cases of electoral fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their electoral role.

The ordinance also requires that states exclude postal bulletins or correspondence voting bulletins received after election day and put in danger of federal funding for states if electoral officials do not comply. Some states include the ballots as long as they are hidden by post by the public election or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.

Forcing states to change, says the prosecution, would violate the broad authority that the Constitution gives to the States to establish their own electoral rules. He says that they decide “times, places and ways” of how the elections are executed.

Congress has the power to “do or modify” electoral regulations, at least for federal functions, but the Constitution does not mention any presidential authority on the administration of the elections.

The trial was filed with the Massachusetts American district court. Other prosecution brought by the prescription argue that it could deprive voters because millions of Americans eligible for voting age do not have the easily available appropriate documents. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under pain of perjury, in order to vote.

Under the order, the documents acceptable to prove citizenship would be an American passport, a real driving license in accordance with the identification which “indicates that the applicant is a citizen” and a valid photo identity document as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship.

Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not easily have access to their birth certificates, about half have no American passport and that married women would need several documents if they had changed their names. It was a complication for certain women during the recent city elections in New Hampshire, the first detainees under a new state law demanding proof of citizenship to register.

Not all driving licenses in accordance with identification designate American citizenship.

Cassidy reported to Atlanta.