In a significant move that is expected to ignite further legal and political debate, former President Donald Trump announced plans to issue an executive order aimed at phasing out mail-in voting and electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots and hand counts. Trump asserted his position by stating that the states function merely as agents of the federal government in counting and tabulating votes, suggesting they must adhere to the federal directives as represented by the President.
However, legal experts point out that Trump’s assertions face significant constitutional hurdles. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause grants state legislatures the authority to determine the specifics of federal elections, with the proviso that Congress can alter or override these regulations. The clause notably does not extend similar oversight to the president, raising questions about Trump’s legal authority to unilaterally enforce these changes. Legal scholars, including Northeastern University’s Jeremy Paul, argue that any alterations to mail-in voting procedures must pass through Congress rather than stem from an executive order initiated by the president.
Despite long-standing claims challenging the security of mail-in voting, empirical data suggests otherwise. Studies, including a comprehensive review by the Brennan Center for Justice, consistently indicate that voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, with incidence rates varying between 0.0003% and 0.0025%. Pennsylvania officials underscore that instances of mail ballot fraud are isolated and have not demonstrably affected the outcomes of elections.
The proposal to return to paper ballots and manual counting might introduce challenges of its own. Experts warn that while paper ballots are indeed common, hand-counting is labor-intensive and potentially error-prone. In a related study, it was found that manual counters could misinterpret up to 25% of ballots during an initial count, illustrating the efficiency and accuracy benefits provided by voting machines. The logistical demands of large-scale hand counts could necessitate increased staffing and financial resources, potentially delaying election results.
The ongoing legal discourse around the reach of Trump’s proposed executive order takes into account recent judicial decisions supporting mail-in voting practices. In Pennsylvania, Act 77, which expands mail-in voting, was upheld by the state’s Supreme Court, affirming that the state legislature holds broad authority to manage such electoral practices. This ruling reinforces long-standing precedents regarding state autonomy in election administration.
As the discourse around Trump’s announcement continues, it serves as a potent reminder of the complexities inherent in balancing federal and state powers in the domain of election law. More details on this announcement can be found here.