Judge smacks down Trump’s 'desperate' attempt to seize control of elections

U.S. President Donald Trump reacts during an executive order signing on mail ballots, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., March 31, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

On Wednesday, a federal judge smacked down President Donald Trump’s “unconstitutional” attack on U.S. election integrity by ruling against an executive order that would assert federal control over mail-in voting. According to former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, the judge’s order comes as Trump has given “every reason to take him seriously when he threatens to declare an emergency to seize control of the outcome.”

As Vance explains, “Today, in a case brought by the League of Women Voters, Judge Indira Talwani in Boston entered a nationwide order blocking the Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s efforts to assert federal control over mail-in voting policies ahead of the election. Previously, as a result of her decision in another case, his plans had been paused in some states, but not others (only states whose AGs sued were covered), creating still more confusion and an uneven playing field for voters to navigate.”

But per the judge’s order, “Where the EO is presently causing confusion and threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy, the court finds that enfranchisement heavily outweighs the executive’s attempt to unconstitutionally insert itself into the domain of election regulation.”

While the government had argued that it is too soon for a judge to deliver a final ruling, claiming that the Postal Service must first establish new rules in concordance with Trump’s EO, which could then be challenged in court, the judge “disagreed sharply,” writing, “The court finds it prudent to review the EO now, where less than 90 days pend before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November.” She also noted that the short amount of time before the midterms “underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election.”

Now, as Vance explains, the judge has “frozen the status quo in place; if her order stands, the vote will proceed without any of the modifications to the rules Trump is trying to put into place.” She also “goes to pains to emphasize how the system works,” emphasizing “that in the Motor Voter Act ‘Congress requires States to allow citizens to register by mail or when applying for a driver’s license ... and to attest to their citizenship through the use of a federal registration form ... Under the NVRA, States retain control over compiling rolls of citizens ... To avoid potentially erroneous disenfranchisement, the NVRA also prohibits States from systematically removing ineligible individuals from voter rolls fewer than 90 days before a federal election.’ States effectuate the law in different ways as is their right — Congress can set national standards in federal elections, but it’s up to the states to administer their own election.”

As a result of the ruling, “the Postal Service may not refuse ‘to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots’ and is also barred from issuing additional rules and regulations aimed at carrying out the Executive Order.”

“Today’s news is good,” writes Vance. “We would do well to remember that we are only here because of Trump’s insistence on trying to prevent the votes of Americans who don’t vote with him from counting. That’s something no president should do and no court, or citizen for that matter, should tolerate.”

“Trump has told us who he is. We absolutely must believe him and prepare to protect our right to vote,” concludes Vance. “With polls showing him seriously underwater, there is every reason to believe he will become more desperate with his back against the wall.”

From Your Site Articles