Lawyers urge judge to block Trump order that would create eligible voter list, limit mail ballots

Trump's initial executive order to revamp elections by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, issued last year, was largely halted by multiplefederal judges on similar grounds. He issued his latest order only after the voting bill he backed stalled in Congress. The current legal fight comes as the country is in the midst of primary elections and election officials are preparing for the intricacies of holding the fall's midterm elections.

“I understand the time pressure here,” said Nichols, who questioned both sides but gave no clear indication of which way he's leaning.

The president can’t rewrite election rules to give himself and the Republican Party a partisan advantage, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said. They argued that the executive order’s requirements are illegal and designed to coerce states into limiting voter registration and ballot access.

“It is harming our clients every day in the middle of an election season,” said Orion Nevers, an attorney representing the NAACP.

Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Since even before his 2020 loss, Trump has falsely implied there is mass fraud involved in the practice and fought to curtail it, even after his baseless claims led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and were repeatedly debunked by audits and reviews, including some run by Republicans.

Since returning to office, Trump has said he wants Republicans to “take over” elections in Democratic areas and launched investigations of the 2020 vote.

His latest executive order calls on the Department of Homeland Security to make a list of eligible voters in each state and seeks to prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to those not on each state’s approved list.

The administration is asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Justice Department attorney Stephen Pezzi on Thursday suggested that the litigation is premature, calling it “shadowboxing” for the plaintiffs to challenge a list that hasn’t yet been created.

“It’s a little hard to address these questions in the abstract,” Pezzi said.

Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, asked Pezzi why it would be lawful to disseminate the list to states.

“I think it would be the plaintiffs’ burden to explain why it’s unlawful,” Pezzi replied. “I don’t mean to be cute with that answer.”

Trump’s executive order requires federal agencies to compile a list of adults the U.S. government has purportedly “confirmed” to be U.S. citizens and to share it with each state at least 60 days before each federal election.

“There isn’t a way to lawfully compile it,” said Lalitha Madduri, an attorney for Democratic Party plaintiffs.

Danielle Lang, who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the executive order is aimed at creating “the maximum amount of chaos and confusion” for local election officials.

“They need clear direction,” Lang said.

Riccardi reported from Denver.