A federal appellate panel on Tuesday refused to block President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to restrict mail voting, a day after the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the proposal in a separate case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a May ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols that said an injunction against the order was premature. Nichols ruled that the Democrats and voting rights groups who challenged the order couldn't seek the injunction until the Trump administration issued formal regulations governing it. The administration started releasing those directives days later.
The circuit court panel, with two judges appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama and one by Trump, found that was proper and there were no noted dissents. But the unsigned decision noted that if the administration truly tried to force such changes in the few months remaining before November's midterm election, it may well get halted by courts.
"The action the Order contemplates would involve the President, whom the Constitution vests with no express authority over the conduct of elections, undertaking a substantial and unfunded overhaul of election procedures — including the implementation of a nationwide reform to Postal Service mail-handling processes —on the threshold of the November election. Put differently, the Order 'may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever,'" said the ruling, quoting a prior legal opinion.
In a separate case filed by Democratic state officials, a federal judge in Massachusetts last month blocked the executive order from taking effect for this year's elections because it was already forcing states, which are granted the power under the U.S. Constitution to control their own elections, to revise their procedures on the fly. That ruling was upheld on Saturday by a Boston-based appeals court and then was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday by the Trump administration.
#order
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a May ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols that said an injunction against the order was premature. Nichols ruled that the Democrats and voting rights groups who challenged the order couldn't seek the injunction until the Trump administration issued formal regulations governing it. The administration started releasing those directives days later.
The circuit court panel, with two judges appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama and one by Trump, found that was proper and there were no noted dissents. But the unsigned decision noted that if the administration truly tried to force such changes in the few months remaining before November's midterm election, it may well get halted by courts.
"The action the Order contemplates would involve the President, whom the Constitution vests with no express authority over the conduct of elections, undertaking a substantial and unfunded overhaul of election procedures — including the implementation of a nationwide reform to Postal Service mail-handling processes —on the threshold of the November election. Put differently, the Order 'may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever,'" said the ruling, quoting a prior legal opinion.
In a separate case filed by Democratic state officials, a federal judge in Massachusetts last month blocked the executive order from taking effect for this year's elections because it was already forcing states, which are granted the power under the U.S. Constitution to control their own elections, to revise their procedures on the fly. That ruling was upheld on Saturday by a Boston-based appeals court and then was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday by the Trump administration.
#order
2 months ago
