New York State part of coalition of states suing the Trump administration again: “We are a democracy – not a monarchy”

New York – New York Attorney General Letitia James, alongside a coalition of 18 other attorneys general, has filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s recent Executive Order which claims extensive control over the electoral processes in the United States. The order, issued on March 25, has been criticized for its unprecedented claims over electoral authority and its potential to impede free and fair voting.

The lawsuit argues that the President’s executive action represents a severe overreach of presidential powers, violating the constitutional balance of powers, state sovereignty, and existing congressional mandates. According to Attorney General James, the order not only seeks to undermine the democratic ethos of the nation but also aims at disenfranchising American voters.

“Donald Trump’s attempt to control our elections, intimidate voters, and limit Americans’ right to vote is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and frankly, un-American,” said Attorney General James. “We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this Executive Order is an authoritarian power grab. With this Order, this President is prioritizing his own quest for unchecked power above the rights and will of the public. My office is fighting back to preserve our democracy – one that is fair, just, and accountable to the people.”

Central to the controversy is the directive within the President’s order that seeks to prohibit states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive post-Election Day but are postmarked by the election date. This directive could significantly disrupt the mail-in voting systems many states have implemented to ensure broader voter participation and accessibility. Moreover, the order mandates the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission to implement a proof of citizenship requirement on federal voter registration forms—a move that has not been sanctioned by either the Constitution or Congress.

Legal experts point out that the President’s attempts to mandate such changes directly conflict with the National Voting Rights Act, which only requires voter attestation of citizenship under the penalty of perjury. The attorneys general maintain that any alteration to federal voter registration processes must involve the Election Assistance Commission, in a manner that is consistent with existing federal laws and in consultation with state governments.

The implications of the executive order extend beyond legal irregularities. Should states fail to comply with these directives, they risk severe consequences, including the withholding of crucial federal election and counterterrorism funding. Additionally, the order threatens non-compliant states with federal investigations and possible legal actions, further complicating the already intricate balance between federal oversight and state-run electoral systems.

By bringing this lawsuit, Attorney General James and her counterparts aim to defend the autonomy of state-governed electoral processes and prevent what they view as a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit stresses that the responsibility to administer elections should squarely fall within the purview of individual states, without undue interference from the executive branch.

The legal challenge has garnered the support of attorneys general from a diverse array of states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, illustrating widespread concern over the implications of the President’s executive order on the democratic process.

As the case progresses, it stands as a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the integrity and autonomy of U.S. electoral practices. The coalition led by Attorney General James emphasizes that safeguarding democratic principles and ensuring free, fair, and accessible elections are paramount, urging the court to halt what they deem to be an unconstitutional exertion of presidential power.