మధ్యంతర ఎన్నికలకు ముందు ట్రంప్ మెయిల్ ఓటింగ్ సమగ్రతను అప్పీల్ కోర్టు అడ్డుకుంది

Article content

A U.S. appeals court rejected the Justice Department’s request to let federal officials fully move ahead with Donald Trump’s overhaul of mail voting ahead of the November midterm elections, leaving in place a Boston judge’s order that declared the president’s policies unlawful.

Article content

A three-judge appellate panel said it would not pause a lower court ruling that barred federal agencies from immediately enforcing Trump’s executive order in almost two dozen states and the District of Columbia where Democratic officials sued.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Several other legal challenges are pending against the president’s directives, including a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee and party leaders in Congress.

Article content

Article content

The Justice Department signalled in earlier court filings that it would consider taking the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Boston judge’s injunction doesn’t apply nationwide, it’s considered a significant impediment to the administration’s ability to carry out Trump’s executive order for the November vote.

Article content

The Justice Department said in a statement Sunday it’s “reviewing all options” and “remains confident that President Trump’s order to secure federal elections will ultimately be upheld.”

Article content

Advocates across the political spectrum are vying to swing election-related legal fights in their favour before November, when Republicans will defend tight margins of control in both chambers of Congress.

Article content

The majority of the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit found that at this early stage of the case, the states that sued presented enough evidence that they were being harmed by the president’s actions and had standing to press their claims.

Article content

Article content

“All told, between the compressed timelines and anticipated changes to states’ election processes, the summary judgment record indicates that the EO has already ‘produced an incredible strain’ on state election officials and their teams,” Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman wrote in a joint opinion, referring to Trump’s executive order. Both judges were appointed by former President Joe Biden.

Article content

Article content

Judge Joshua Dunlap, an appointee during Trump’s second term, partially dissented, writing that he would have allowed a section of the challenged order that directed the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a list of potentially eligible U.S. citizen voters as guidance for states, which run elections, to go ahead.

Article content

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office led the states that sued, said in a statement that the decision ensures “key provisions” of the executive order “remain blocked for the upcoming midterm elections in the plaintiff states.”

Article content

The government argued that the Homeland Security list was intended to only serve as a resource to local jurisdictions. State officials who sued pointed to language in the executive order that appeared to threaten them with criminal prosecution if they didn’t use the federal lists to determine who is eligible to vote.