Former President Donald Trump’s most recent executive order will overhaul the entire concept of voter registration in the United States as we know it. This order creates burdensome new requirements on federal elections. The order, described by White House staff secretary Will Scharf as "the farthest reaching executive action taken" in the nation’s history, mandates that voters present documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to participate in federal elections. This implementation was met with significant outcry over the potential disenfranchisement. According to the National Commission on Voting Rights, nearly 21 million voting-age Americans lack a current, valid ID.
Through the executive order, the federal agencies are being delegated the authority to withhold funds from states that do not comply with these complicated and extensive new requirements. This part of the order has already sparked a firestorm. It’s the U.S. Constitution, and it is very explicit that states and Congress—not the president—make the election rules. Opponents say this move is one of the largest uses of executive overreach in history.
Increased complicating factors
Adding to this already complex picture, the Department of Justice is now directed by the White House to aggressively prosecute what they call “election crimes.” This order arrives in the context of continued dialogue surrounding voter fraud and election security. Federal law already forbids non-citizens from voting with penalties that reach up to five years’ incarceration. Our existing election administration systems rely on multiple disparate federal databases to determine if someone is eligible to vote. This includes granular citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security.
This year, in 2024, the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement decided that was a terrible statistic. Approximately 21 million voting-age Americans do not have sufficient identification to fulfill the new mandate. A newly-released 2023 report from the State Department shows a surprising trend. Today, fewer than one in four Americans have a valid passport. The Center for American Progress recently highlighted one particularly troubling issue. As many as 69 million women who have ever changed their names may not be able to produce corresponding documentation.
Republicans have seen this opportunity for years to introduce a citizenship requirement to the federal form. The courts have repeatedly thwarted their attempts. This might seem like a minor detail, but the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission has the authority to establish requirements on this form. Critics of the new order claim that it comes with a set of requirements so burdensome that they would effectively disenfranchise millions if implemented.
Danielle Lang, an expert on election law, criticized the order, stating:
“The short answer is that this executive order, like all too many that we’ve seen before, is lawless and asserts all sorts of executive authority that he most assuredly does not have.”
Trump defended his actions by emphasizing the need for electoral integrity:
“Perhaps some people think I shouldn’t be complaining because we won in a landslide, but we got to straighten out our election.”
The order is also viewed as part of a broader, more insidious pattern to undermine the immigration system and nationwide, majority-stop voting. Electoral opposition While Republicans claim these measures are needed to restore faith in elections, critics are quick to call out the threat of mass disenfranchisement.
Jen Easterly, a prominent figure in election security, offered reassurance about the current state of election infrastructure:
“Our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people.”
Contrary to these reassurances, the new executive order has sparked into flame an already heated discussion over automatic voter registration and election security. This order will no doubt have far reaching effects on upcoming electoral cycles. It might just determine the future of electoral democracy in the U.S.