Liberal U.S. Judge Stops Trump’s Order that Voters Show Proof of Citizenship.

Yet another Federal District Court Judge has blocked another of President Donald Trump’s Executive Orders — this time to end his requirement that voters provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, ordered the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) not to require a passport or other proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Read the Judge’s Memorandum Opinion and Order.

On March 25th, Trump issued an Executive Order requiring the Election Assistance Commission to require “documentary proof of United States citizenship” in its national mail voter registration form.

Liberal organizations and Democrats challenged Trump’s order.

Read the Executive Order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.”

“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.”

Left-wing organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, and elected Democrats, sued, alleging that Mr. Trump’s attempt to assure that only U.S. citizens voted in U.S. elections, violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the harms identified by the plaintiffs were speculative.

“It is telling that of all the Plaintiffs in this case, none are individually named voters who claim they would be injured but for this Court’s immediate intervention,” the DOJ said in its opposition. “And these Plaintiffs have thus far been unable to identify by name the voters they purport to represent.”

Read the Government’s Opposition filing.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued her injunction, saying the Democrat liberal organizations bringing the lawsuit are likely to prevail. And sure they would — in her court. But for all people utilizing common sense we ask, how does a requirement that only American citizens are allowed to vote in American elections violate the Constitution? Of course to most thinking people, such a formulation cannot be unconstitutional. Well, certainly the judge recognizes how absurd her thinking is, so she obfuscates by saying that she is not deciding that the formulation is bad, but just that it is unconstitutional for the president to establish voting rules, which should only be done by the Congress. We have two thoughts: (1) When Joe Biden issued his Executive Order in 2021, “Promoting Access to Voting,” we didn’t see federal judges kicking it to the curb because the President has no authority to get involved in voting procedures; and (2) we suspect that if this same rule had been enacted in legislation by the Congress, this same judge would thereupon proceed to find it unconstitutional.

And now we have news that yet another Federal Judge has stopped President Trump’s order to dismantle the Voice of America (VoA).

Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump Administration from dismantling the VoA. Mr. Trump has said that VoA promoted biased reporting.

And still another Federal Judge has now stopped the Trump administration from defunding cities with sanctuary polices that protect illegal immigrants. Judge William Orrick in San Francisco issued an injunction sought by San Francisco and by 15 other municipalities that do not cooperate or severely limit their cooperation with federal immigration efforts and protect illegal immigrants from deportation by refusing to identify them to federal immigration authorities.

These three Federal Judge, joins a long list of other U.S. District Court Judges, who have used their positions to stymie Mr. Trump’s agenda. In our article, “OPINION: Democrat U.S. Judges Collude to Thwart Trump Policies and Agenda” we discussed how numerous liberal judges are throwing monkey wrenches into nearly every initiative President Trump attempts. Of course, these judges always claim that they are champions of the Constitution and that Trump’s actions are constantly unconstitutional. Since just about everything a President does has a constitutional hook, Mr. Trump is faced with numerous stays and injunctions by judges who had no problems with anything during the Biden and Obama Administrations.

The problem, of course, is that we have three branches of government, which are supposed to be co-equal. But when the judicial branch colludes to replace the policies of the elected President with their own political persuasions, we have what the founders of the Constitution called a “usurpation.”

As stated, certainly these judges don’t think (or won’t admit) that they are usurping the role of the Executive Branch. They will say their actions are required to preserve the Constitution. But this same excuse can be claimed for everything they do. Is it impossible that the Courts might do something that is unconstitutional, and that the Executive Branch might have to step in to preserve the Constitution from their usurpation? The Supreme Court had better get involved and stop these lower court judges, all of them activist politicians in black robes, from usurping the proper functioning of the Executive Branch.