[ad_1]
Washington – Democratic officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit on Thursday against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape the elections in the United States, calling it an unconstitutional invasion of the clear body of countries to hold their own elections.
The trial is the fourth against the enforcement order, issued just a week ago. He strives to block key aspects of IT, including new requirements that people provide documentary evidence of citizenship when registering for voting and requesting all mail ballots to be received by the day of election.
“The President has no right to do anything from that,” General State lawyers wrote in court documents. “EO elections are unconstitutional, anti -democratic and non -American.”
Trump’s order states that the United States has failed to “impose basic and necessary election protection.” Election staff said the last election is among the most secure in US history. There are no indications of widespread fraud, including when Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.
The order is the culmination of Trump’s long -standing complaints about how the US election is held. After his first victory in 2016, Trump falsely claims that his overall vote would be much higher if he was not “millions of people who voted illegally.” In 2020, Trump accused “counterfeit” elections for his loss and fakely claimed widespread fraud with voters and manipulating voting machines.
Trump claims that his order secures the vote on the illegal vote by the unborn, although numerous studies and investigations in countries show that it is rare.
He has received praise from the best electoral employees in some Republican countries who say that this may impede cases of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to maintain their electoral rollers better.
The order also requires states to exclude all postal newsletters or absent from election day and puts the federal funding for federal funding at risk if election employees do not comply. Some countries report the ballots as long as they are placed by setting election day or allowing voters to correct small mistakes in their ballots.
Forcing states to change, the case says, it would violate the broad body that the Constitution gives states to set their own rules for elections. It says that they decide the “times, seats and way” of how the elections are held.
The Congress has the power to “make or change” election provisions, at least for the federal position, but the Constitution does not mention the presidential authority for the election administration.
“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian border of power,” said New York Prosecutor General James.
Prosecutor General of Rod Island Peter Nerha said that the Trump administration requires countries either to comply with a non -constitutional order or to lose congress -approved funding, something he said that the president had no authority to do.
“In one foot, this president is trying to undermine the election and bypass the congress, and we will not stand up for it,” he said.
California General Prosecutor Rob Bont said that Trump’s executive order was an attempt to impose “covering restrictions on voting” throughout the country and the release of voters.
The Prosecutor General and the Secretary of State in Nevada, a presidential battlefield, defended the election of his country as fair, secure and transparent, and objected to the president’s attempt to intervene in the way they are governed. Prosecutor General Aaron Ford praised Nevada’s automatic systems for registering voters and distributing newsletters by mail.
“While this order is on his face unconstitutional and illegal, she is also unnecessary,” he said.
A request for a comment sent to the White House was not returned immediately.
The case was brought to the Massachusetts District Court by Democrats’ Lawyers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaer, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New Mexico.
Other lawsuits filed by the order claim that this can defuse voters, as millions of admissible Americans for voting have no appropriate documents. People are already obliged to testify to citizens under punishment of perjury to vote.
According to the order, the documents acceptable to proving citizenship are an American passport, a true driver’s license compatible with an ID, which “shows that the applicant is a citizen” and a valid identification number of the photo, as long as it is presented with evidence of citizenship.
Democrats say millions of Americans have no easy access to their birth certificates, about half have no passport in the US and married women will need multiple documents if they have changed their name. It was a complication for some women during the last elections in the city in New Hampshire, the first to be held under a new state law requiring proof of citizenship for registration.
Not all actually compatible ID driving licenses indicate US citizenship.
___
Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press Writers Trans Nguyen in Sacramento, California, Holly Rammer in Concord, New Hampshire and Rio Yammat in Las Vegas have contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link
