In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.
It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.
Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.
Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.
But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.
If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?
Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.
Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.
When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections
You just really cannot make this stuff up!!!! When a judge takes an oath it includes upholding the Constitution. The 15th and 19th amendments specifically mention CITIZENS. ” We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Does this say anything about non citizens? The phrase “People of the United States” has been understood to mean “nationals and citizens which has been interpreted as citizens born in the United States, and naturalized Citizens. Illegals are neither. The Constitution (including voting rights) is for Citizens, not non citizens or illegals. So yes, the Constitution DOES say that ONLY CITIZENS VOTE at least in federal elections. Since the Constitution is only for Citizens, it could be thought that this would also include State or local elections.
PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP!?!
No proof of citizenship needed under the Bible’s one-God, one-vote election system, rejected by the constitutional framers – another instance in which the framers determined they knew better than their God and Creator, with disastrous consequences.
One of the dumbest things the constitutional framers did was to usurp Yahweh’s exclusive election authority (per Deuteronomy 17:15, etc.), thereby turning election “discretion” over to We the People the majority of whom, according to Christ in Matthew 7:13, are in the broad way leading to *destruction.* WHAT could go wrong?
If ever you’ve wondered HOW America has ended up teetering on the precipice of destruction, now you know – at least in part.
Add to that Article 6’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications (such as, Exodus 18:21) were eliminated and you have the perfect recipe disaster.
For more, see blog article “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table,'” at bible versus constitution dot org. Search title on our Blog.
For how the Bible’s one-God, one-vote election system operates, see blog article “Salvation by Election.” Don’t be fooled by the title.
For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 9.
Weiland: Hello. Clear-enough which side of the aisle YOU are on. How do you spell “leftist” ? As you-all-do: change the subject, never answer the question, make 10 pages of explanations where half-a-page would be sufficient. have fun trashing Our Country, huh ?
Christians are increasingly forewarned about how Marxist Leftwing arguments which cite old testament scripture dismiss both textual and temporal context to maintain the the logical feasibility of their political argumentation. This is particularly true regarding what God defines as sin, as in that which prompted the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Referencing “Build upon the Rock” – Letters of John Quincy Adams to his son on the Bible and its teachings, Adams wrote, “God disclaimed all interference with the ordinary objects of human legislation, declared that His “kingdom was not of this world,” acknowledged the authority of the Jewish magistrates, paid for his own person the tribute to the Romans, refused in more than one instance to assume the office of judge in matters of legal controversy, strictly limited the object of his own precepts and authority to religion and morals, denounced no temporal punishment, promised no temporal rewards, and took up man as a governable being — where the human magistrate is compelled to leave him — and supplied both precept of virtue and motive for practicing it, such as no other moralist or legislator ever attempted to introduce.”
Founder’s for the most part viewed Christianity as Adams further wrote, “…as a system of morality for regulating the conduct of men while on earth.” Build your house upon the rock
thanks for the communist distortion of America’s constitution. Fortunately we have great folks in the White House now and for the foreseeable future that should be able to keep the commies’s anyone should vote whether or not they are citizens line of crap where it belongs, in another country
Democrats and their cabal of leftist anti Trump, anti Republican Judges continue try to use the Courts to block Executive Orders and Trumps agenda which was well publicized prior to his election victory. This should not be allowed at the District level where Democrats go Judge sho[[ing to find sympathetic Courts.
SCOTUS must take this up and put a stop to this infringement of the powers granted to the Executive Branch of our government.
I agree with Garro 100%
Garro: Hello. Yes. The vital law that must be passed, first the House with its stand-out-troublemakers to a slim majority, and the slim less than a 60-count vote. in the sinnit..
the vital law is TRASHING THE LEFTIST ACTIVIST “judges” with gym clothes and sneakers under the robes, especially of the “judges” not born in our USA that those activists must be PINNED INTO their local district swim-lane with NO application of their left-rulings Nationwide.
Those leftist-activist dark robes act like they are really the Executive Branch Head ( POTUS). N/A of course. They are actually harming our Country to interfere with President Trump executive actions. All those interfering “judges” must be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY and have any judicial security clearance REVOKED.
SOUNDS LIKE THIS DUMB BITCH JUST IMPEACHED HERSELF FOR NOT UPHOLDING THE OATH THAT SHE TOOK WHEN SHE TOOK OFFICE. UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR CUOUNTRY. FIRE HER ASS AND TAKE AWAY HER AUTHORITY TO BE ANY KIND OF LAW OFFICIAL EVER AGAIN.
Question:How can a “sane” American Judge who swore to uphold the laws and Constitution block citizenship to vote?Are we dealing with pure evil here?
U.S. ””District”” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ””ZERO”” authority over Executive branch actions!
What’s the big deal of voter ID anyway? You must provide ID to open a bank/checking account. You must provide ID when buying a house. You must provide ID when applying for a Driver’s license. So, what’s the big deal of providing citizenship proof in order to register to vote or worse when actually voting. Only CHEATERS and LIARS don’t require proof.
Here’s a thought. How many valid voters are there at the time of an election? How many votes were actually cast? If the numbers of votes cast are greater than the number of valid voters … there’s probably something fishy going on, don’t you think!?!
Related to this is cleaning up the voter rolls. My father passed a way in 2011, at 96. I have never understood why ensuring his name is removed from the voter rolls could be called suppressing another’s right to vote. The only way the could gossip only apply is if someone else was using his name to vote themselves. This is already fraud, and supposed to be against the law. Providing proof of citizenship to vote would, however, also stop (at least hopefully) potential voters from using someone else’s name.