Judge Hears 3 Lawsuits Challenging Trump Mail-In Ballot Order
Updated
Updated · ms.now · May 14
Judge Hears 3 Lawsuits Challenging Trump Mail-In Ballot Order
5 articles · Updated · ms.now · May 14
Carl Nichols heard arguments Thursday on three suits seeking to block Trump’s March 31 order before it takes effect, with the DNC, NAACP and other groups calling it an unconstitutional federal takeover of mail voting.
The order would have DHS build state-by-state lists of eligible voters from Social Security data, require states to send their own rolls to USPS, and limit mailed ballots to names on the federal list.
Plaintiffs say that system could wrongly exclude eligible voters because federal records are incomplete, with name changes after marriage cited as one risk that could disproportionately affect women.
Trump administration lawyers argued the cases are premature and said the order is meant to protect election integrity, even as Trump has publicly backed proof-of-citizenship rules and opposed mail-in ballots.
The fight adds to broader litigation over Trump’s election directives: 23 Democratic-led states and the League of Women Voters sued in Massachusetts, and courts previously blocked a separate proof-of-citizenship order.
Can federal databases accurately verify every voter without mistakenly removing eligible citizens from the rolls?
Trump’s 2026 Executive Order on Mail-In Voting Faces Major Legal Challenges: What’s at Stake for November’s Elections
Overview
On May 14, 2026, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order, signed March 31, which aims to tighten mail-in voting rules. The order directs the administration to compile lists of eligible U.S. citizens, restricts ballot delivery to approved voters, and requires states to keep election records for five years. These sweeping changes, promoted as measures to prevent voter fraud, face criticism for being difficult to implement before the November elections and for potentially disenfranchising vulnerable groups. The legal battle highlights deep divisions over election integrity and federal versus state authority.