Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Executive Order Draws Lawsuits, Puts Massachusetts Voters at Risk of Exclusion
Why It Matters
Massachusetts is among the states most affected by a new executive order from President Donald Trump that could restrict mail-in voting by requiring voters to appear on a federal citizenship database before their ballots are delivered. With a significant share of Bay State residents relying on mail-in voting, the order carries direct consequences for how elections are administered across the state.
The order also raises broader constitutional questions about federal authority over state-run elections — a fight that is now playing out in federal court in Boston.
What Happened
President Trump signed an executive order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile a state-by-state citizenship list and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters who appear on that list. States that do not comply face the loss of federal funding and the potential criminal prosecution of election officials.
Within days of the order being signed, at least four separate lawsuits were filed to block it. A coalition of voting rights organizations represented by the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice filed one suit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell co-led a separate 24-state lawsuit filed during the first week of April before the same judge. Both cases are scheduled to be heard together at a preliminary injunction hearing set for June 2 in Boston.
Davin Rosborough of the ACLU Voting Rights Project and Celia Canavan, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, discussed the legal challenges in a recent episode of The Codcast, produced by Commonwealth Beacon.
By the Numbers
34 to 62 percent of Massachusetts voters cast mail-in ballots in any given election, according to figures cited in the discussion.
At least four separate lawsuits were filed within days of the executive order being signed.
24 states joined the coalition lawsuit co-led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
12 red states are seeking to intervene in support of the executive order.
Four documented cases of mail-in voting fraud have been recorded in Massachusetts, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation’s own election fraud database.
The Legal and Constitutional Arguments
Both Massachusetts-based suits center on the same constitutional argument: the president has no authority over elections. The Constitution reserves that power to the states and Congress. Rosborough argued the administration is “grasping at straws” by attempting to use independent agencies — first the Election Assistance Commission in a prior executive order, now the Postal Service — as enforcement tools.
Even if some presidential authority existed, Rosborough argued, Trump cannot legally direct USPS to violate federal statutes requiring it to operate as a neutral, non-discriminatory mail carrier.
Both suits also challenge the reliability of the data underlying the order. The primary database DHS would use — the SAVE system, originally built to verify benefits eligibility — has already incorrectly flagged eligible citizens as non-citizens in prior state-level attempts to use it. Social Security Administration records before 1981 did not reliably track citizenship status, meaning older voters and naturalized citizens face a disproportionate risk of being wrongly excluded from voter rolls.
This is not the first time courts have stepped in. A prior executive order that attempted to introduce proof-of-citizenship requirements through the independent Election Assistance Commission was halted by the courts. Voting rights advocates say the lessons learned from that legal fight are informing the current litigation strategy. For more on the state of Massachusetts electoral politics, see our coverage of Minogue’s GOP endorsement and Shortsleeve’s ballot position.
Zoom Out
The executive order is part of a broader pattern of federal efforts to reshape election administration in the United States. President Trump has repeatedly described mail-in voting fraud as widespread — a claim for which election officials and independent researchers have found no supporting evidence. Courts in prior terms have consistently found mail-in voting systems to be secure.
The legal battles over this order come as debates over election integrity, voter access, and federal versus state authority are intensifying nationwide. The question of which level of government controls election rules has become one of the most contested issues in American constitutional law.
What’s Next
A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for June 2 in Boston, where both the ACLU-Brennan Center coalition suit and the 24-state attorney general lawsuit will be heard together before the same federal judge. The outcome of that hearing could determine whether the executive order takes effect before any future elections. Twelve states supporting the order are seeking to intervene in the proceedings, which could further complicate the legal timeline.