Elias....

This is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail.

We know where this will go -- the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement.

We will sue and we will win. https://t.co/iw8U6BuhUA

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) March 31, 2026

See you in court. You will lose. https://t.co/iLwanl6pne

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) March 31, 2026

The "Take Care" clause. https://t.co/KSRijGDUkl

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 31, 2026

It's like he's intentionally putting ***t out there to waste the courts time.

He's pure garbage. He's probably not human, honestly.

Let me get this straight. States already have lists of eligible voters.. A list of mail-in voters should be then simply a subset of the list of eligible voters, nothing new. What am I missing?

doubledog said:

---

Let me get this straight. States already have lists of eligible voters.. A list of mail-in voters should be then simply a subset of the list of eligible voters, nothing new. What am I missing?

---

A lot. States during 2020 no longer relied on absentee requested ballots, such as being elderly or out of the state on election day, military service etc. Those were excused and absentee ballots issued. Because of the manufactured covid crisis, voter rolls were opened up to EVERY voter receiving multiple MIBs.

In many cases, those MIBs were outsourced to private entities to have the voter rolls and send out (or hold) as many as they wanted. (Please note voter rolls include personal data which includes voting history.)

Wrong.

The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot… https://t.co/QyoNxNP44E

— David Clements (@theprofsrecord) April 1, 2026

Quote:

---

Wrong.

The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures.

The Supreme Court has interpreted "manner" broadly to include "notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices," etc.

The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants ("requirements payments") explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding.

The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls ("list maintenance"), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy.

Trump's EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS's SAVE program).

Moreover, Congress's power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive.

- HAVA already does exactly thisgrants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards.

- The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding "federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law." This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes.

Finally, Trump's EO's core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures:

- USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable "Official Election Mail" envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processesthey simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service.

This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds.

Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections.

The democrats are toast.

---

Gnome Sayin said:

---

It's like he's intentionally putting ***t out there to waste the courts time.

---

He's intentionally putting stuff out there to remind the American people that Democrats are on the 20 side of this 80/20 issue like pretty much all the rest of them. This isn't a controversial issue except in DC where the Democrats can't let anything resembling election integrity be passed and Republicans don't have the balls to do it on their own.

It's no different than asking Congress to stand and show their support for the fact that the American government should prioritize citizens over illegal immigrants. That was such an obvious "we need to play along here" yet they couldn't do it.

When is the last time the Democrats backed something that was an obvious win for American citizens in general? That's all this is, setting up the Democrats to show us who they are.

Mr. Lost Every Election Case And Who Actively Uses Mail-in Voting at it again with trying to rig the system.

He does this to force it into the courts, so decision on the constitutionalty of if can be examined. Its a good and fast way to get BS rules and undefined regulations/laws reviewed without the lame do nothing Congress.