On March 31st — the day before April Fools, which feels cosmically correct — Donald Trump sat down in the Oval Office and signed an executive order designed to make it substantially harder for millions of Americans to vote by mail. Standing behind him, grinning like a man who’d just been told he didn’t have to pay taxes anymore, was Commerce Secretary Howard Nutlick, who explained cheerfully that states wanting to use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots would now need to get a special barcode from USPS and put it on every envelope. One ballot, one code. The Postal Service will be watching.
Trump, for his part, offered this explanation: “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible, what’s gone on.”
He cast his own ballot by mail in Florida last week.
We just need that to sit there for a second.
The man who has spent six years calling mail-in voting a fraud-riddled national disgrace has voted by mail in Florida so many times that his mail-in ballot is practically a registered Florida resident. But sure. Legendary cheating. Horrible what’s gone on.
Here is what the executive order actually does. It directs the Department of Homeland Security — working with the Social Security Administration — to build a citizenship verification list for every state, containing the name of every adult citizen eligible to vote in upcoming federal elections. That list goes to the states, 60 days before each election. States must then send USPS a roster of voters they intend to give mail ballots to. USPS is directed to deliver mail ballots only to people on that approved list. The Attorney General gets instructions to prioritize investigation and prosecution of election officials who distribute ballots to “ineligible voters” — and to withhold federal funds from states that don’t comply.
Read that again slowly. The federal executive branch is claiming the authority to determine who gets a ballot in elections that the Constitution explicitly delegates to the states.
Multiple legal experts said this plainly and immediately: he doesn’t have this power. The Constitution vests election administration in the states. Congress can pass laws about federal elections. The president, acting alone, cannot restructure how ballots are distributed by executive fiat. Trump called the order “foolproof,” which is always a great sign. “Maybe it’ll be tested,” he said. “Maybe it won’t.”
It will be tested. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state conducts about 80% of its elections by mail, said Trump is “trying to control who gets to vote” and pledged every legal tool available. Colorado’s Secretary of State noted, with commendable directness, that Trump himself votes by mail, that the Constitution is clear, and that she looks forward to this unconstitutional overreach being stopped in court. Maine’s Secretary of State said the state would not be “obeying in advance.” Nevada’s Secretary of State pointed out that Trump “has spent years attempting to manufacture a crisis around mail voting when there is none.” Democratic AGs and secretaries of state across the country have already made clear they’re suiting up.
This is also, importantly, Trump’s second executive order on elections. The first one, signed in March of 2025, has been largely blocked in court. That didn’t slow him down. He just wrote another one. Bypass Congress by writing an executive order that they would never pass because it’s illegal, get your ass handed to you in court, write another executive order that’s illegal, get your ass handed to you in court, etc etc.
But here’s what you need to understand about where we actually are: this executive order is not a lone rogue move. It is one prong of a coordinated three-front assault on voting access being prosecuted simultaneously through the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the Supreme Court — all aimed at the 2026 midterms.
Front two: the SAVE America Act. This is the legislation Trump has called more important than everything else Congress is doing, the bill he said Republicans must pass “with passion” or face electoral doom in November. The House passed it in February. It’s been stalled in the Senate because Democrats have blocked it and because even Senate Majority Leader John Thune has admitted, with notable resignation, “It’s about the math.” He needs 60 votes. He doesn’t have them. One Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted against it. Thune described himself as “the clear-eyed realist” in the room, which you love to hear from the Senate Majority Leader whose president is demanding he blow up the filibuster.
What would the SAVE Act do? It would require documentary proof of citizenship — a U.S. passport or certified birth certificate — for voter registration in federal elections. Not a driver’s license. Not a military ID. A passport or a birth certificate. Research shows over 21 million Americans don’t have easy access to those documents. Married women who changed their last names would need both a birth certificate and a marriage certificate. Rural voters in parts of the West would need to drive an average of 260 miles to reach an election office. Utah — a Republican state — recently conducted one of the most comprehensive citizenship audits in the country, reviewing over two million registered voters. They found ONE confirmed case of noncitizen registration. ZERO noncitizen votes.
Here is the thing, though, that cuts through all the rhetoric: Trump himself told a room full of Republican lawmakers that passing the SAVE Act would “guarantee” a GOP victory in the midterms. Senate Republicans’ own allies have said publicly that if the bill fails, it becomes a campaign issue. This is not a secret. The goal is not election security. The goal is, in the words of the actual majority leader of the United States Senate, “what we can achieve here” — which translates cleanly to: winning in November with fewer of the wrong people voting.
Even as the federal bill stalls, states are running their own plays. Florida’s Ron DeSantis has said he plans to sign a state-level SAVE Act replica. South Dakota and Utah have already passed their own versions, effective before this year’s midterms. The Voting Rights Lab is tracking the spread.
Front three: the Supreme Court. On March 23rd, the court’s conservative majority heard oral arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case about whether states can count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive a few days after. Fourteen states and D.C. currently have these grace periods. Fifteen more have extended deadlines for military and overseas voters.
The conservatives on the court telegraphed their inclinations with the subtlety of a foghorn. Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern that late-arriving ballots could “seriously undermine confidence in election outcomes.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh — and please hold this quote in your mind — said that if “the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode.” He then asked the Republican National Committee’s lawyer whether a ruling in June would give states enough time to implement changes before November. The lawyer said yes. Kavanaugh nodded.
A ruling expected by late June or early July. Just in time for the midterms.
To recap the coordination: A rapey president, who votes by mail, signs an order restructuring who gets mail ballots. A Congress working to pass legislation that would block over 21 million citizens from registering to vote. A Supreme Court poised to invalidate grace periods for late-arriving ballots in 14 states, right before a midterm election. And a Justice of that Supreme Court openly wondering whether the optics of votes being counted after election night might give someone cause to call an election rigged.
They have learned from the last time. This time they’re not trying to overturn a result. They’re trying to engineer one.
The Constitution is not a suggestion. Elections belong to the people. We don’t stop watching, we don’t stop fighting, and we don’t stop voting — by whatever legal means remain available to us.
Add comment
Comments