In Part 1, Pat Merloe examines the impact of the political environment, the necessity of constitutional defense against power-grabbing, and the detrimental effects of proof of citizenship on voting.
Part One: Bellicose Environment, Constitutional Infringements, and Disenfranchisement by Proof of Citizenship
The intense MAGA barrage against genuine elections, leading up to 2024’s voting, paused briefly after Election Day - not because there was diminished MAGA hostility towards typically trustworthy processes and results, but mainly because Donald Trump won. Much valuable work took place to protect last year’s polls, and much more will be needed as we head toward 2026, 2028, and beyond.
While some would like us to believe that “all’s quiet on the election front”, multipoint attacks are underway with just 17 months until 2026’s voting and less time before off-year elections this November. Awareness of the attacks – and those fortifying trustworthy processes – is crucial for defending democracy.
While Donald Trump’s July 2024 statement may not be a MAGA roadmap, it remains a threat to free and fair elections that should be heeded: “We’ll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote”. Just as there was Project 2025, we can be certain that there is a project to maintain and expand power by “fixing” elections or perhaps even keeping power despite them.
Effects of the Political Environment
American elections are taking place in an increasingly bellicose political environment, amid a presidential power grab. The deployment of military troops to Los Angeles despite opposition from its Mayor and Governor, threats to use “very big force” against protests of Trumps’ June 14th military parade, and tactics used in stepped up immigration raids in cities aimed to break Democratic power centers portend a more confrontational atmosphere as the summer and pre-election periods develop.
Power grabbing includes: subverting judicial and congressional checks and balances; prodding for an anti-constitutional third presidential term; pressuring news media, law firms, judges, and universities to tow the line politically; issuing executive orders that undermine trustworthy elections; as well as targeting political “enemies”. Such enemies encompass officials who told the truth about the 2020 presidential election and others currently working to protect voting rights.
Those factors are mixing with five years of Big-Lie propaganda claiming that the 2020 presidential race was stolen – a fabrication that is still being propagated, including by people in key roles in the Administration. Repeating the falsehood is part of justifying current actions and softening the ground for false claims about future MAGA election losses.
Added to the mix is hype around the fiction that voting by non-citizens is a significant threat that warrants overly burdensome proof of citizenship and other barriers to exercising voting rights. Such barriers are incorporated into the SAVE Act, state bills, and EO 14248, the presidential executive order on elections. MAGA-related groups like True The Vote and Election Integrity Network are using such issues to develop local organizations that are advocating for voting barriers and questioning electoral processes. Plus, election officials continue to face harassment and threats, as are many judges.
In short, we are living in a distressed election environment that is under siege and in need of reinforcements. That includes robust, honest journalism, truthful sources speaking out across social and other digital platforms, community forums that bridge divides where possible, and broad citizen engagement. Fortunately, there are such efforts that merit attention and support.
Defending Constitutional Electoral Protections
Irrespective of notable shortcomings in the electoral arena, the U.S. Constitution protects against the presidential usurpation of electoral powers. Article I, Section 4 is explicit: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.…”
There is no constitutional role for a president to dictate electoral rules, and Article II’s definition of a president’s powers requires an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” not subvert it under the pretext of executing laws passed by Congress or to address fabricated crises.
Yet, President Trump has done just that and will likely try to dictate more rules favoring MAGA power – and MAGA congressional actions, such as those through the SAVE Act or otherwise, could clear the way.
President Trump’s Executive Order 14248, ironically titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of Elections”, overrides constitutional powers provided to the states and Congress. It offends the principle of universal and equal suffrage by creating unwarranted barriers to voting in person and by mail, requires unworkable electoral administration actions, breaches citizen privacy rights, and mobilizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) for political advantage. It thus illustrates important elements of the MAGA elections project.
The Order overlooks that the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an independent body established by Congress as a nonpartisan entity. An earlier Executive Order (14215) claims the power to negate the independence of agencies like the EAC, Federal Election Commission (FEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which also has an electoral impact. And, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management could also undermine their independence. In addition, the FEC’s federal campaign finance oversight role is also being obstructed by an orchestrated quorum deficiency.
If the EAC and other independent agencies created by Congress are allowed to become political tools of the presidency, future Executive Orders could easily be issued to tilt the electoral playing field or even interfere in determining election results. Court actions to limit such orders would be curtailed if the MAGA congressional agenda is enacted. Plus, the power of lower federal courts to restrain such actions was severely limited by the recent Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v CASA. At the outer edge of the interference spectrum, declaring emergencies and deploying military force to protect those “performing federal functions” should such vaguely defined actions become normalized.
Attorneys general from 19 states are suing in federal court seeking to block many provisions of EO 14248. On June 13, the court issued a preliminary injunction against five subsections of the EO, though several harmful provisions of the EO remain unaddressed. Two of the subsections addressed concerned proof of citizenship, which a different court also enjoined. The ruling restrained three other provisions: a constraint on military voting; the US Attorney General enforcing the EO’s Election Day mail ballot deadline; and instruction to the EAC to condition funding to states on their accepting that deadline (though EO Section 4(a) on withholding EAC funding was not addressed).
While further proceedings and appeals will follow, the suit illustrates the importance of attorneys general in defending constitutional protections. That role is heightened by Trump v. CASA decision, which restricts lower federal courts from issuing universal (i.e., nationwide) preliminary injunctions except in very limited circumstances where “complete relief” is necessary for the specific parties to the case (e.g., to states that are plaintiffs) or broad relief is gained through class action cases that are expensive and slow moving. The impact of the CASA decision in the election arena, where swift court action is crucial, could be detrimental.
Proof of Citizenship Requirements Disenfranchises Eligible Voters
Section 2(a) of EO 14248 instructs the EAC to modify its national mail voter registration form to include documented proof of citizenship, which would unnecessarily block large numbers of eligible voters from registering and burden state and local officials with onerous record-keeping of details. The EO’s acceptable documents only include a US passport, Real ID, or a military, state, or federal photo ID that indicates US citizenship. According to the State Department’s 2024 data, just under 50% of the total US population holds a valid passport, and this percentage applies to voters, excluding duplicate holders and children.
The list does not include a birth certificate, which is often the basis for the listed IDs, thus manufacturing a likely two-stage process. Obtaining a government-certified birth certificate itself can be expensive and time-consuming, and thus can be a voting barrier to potentially millions of people. Such barriers particularly affect young people and minority communities.
The Order’s Section 2(d) requires federal agencies like the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of the Interior to assess citizenship before providing the federal voter registration form to persons in public assistance programs.
State officials would need to modify voter registration databases and take other measures within an unrealistic timeframe to comply with using the revised federal registration form. The Order also requires the FEC to cut funding to states that do not, among other matters, use the form, though Congress authorized such funding.
The proof of citizenship requirements in Sections 2(a) and (d) were preliminarily enjoined by a federal court ruling in response to a suit brought by the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of Women Voters, Democratic National Committee, and others. This ruling will also now work its way through further hearings and appeals in light of the Trump v. CASA ruling, while federal and state legislative proof-of-citizenship requirements remain part of the electoral battlefield.
The SAVE Act – which may soon come to a Senate vote – does many of the same things as EO 14248, including codifying proof of citizenship for voting and putting unrealistic, unfunded demands on election officials. Plus, the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) new Process and Procedures Taskforce is promoting to state legislatures the SAVE Act and other voting restrictions, as are efforts like the August 2025 “Only Citizens Vote Month” lobbying campaign by the Tea Party Patriots. Countering such efforts through education and mobilization are pro-voter organizations, including the Brennan Center, IssueOne, the Center for American Progress (CAP), and VoteRiders.
The MAGA election attacks are also being launched on other fronts. Some spring from additional provisions of EO 14248. The salvos entail weaponizing the Justice Department, including its Voting Rights Section, as well as assaults on the courts and other facets of trustworthy elections, which are explored in parts two and three of this series. They emphasize the urgency of building an effective defensive effort that requires taking a position on the ramparts.
Part Two, which will be published on Saturday, July 12, examines the detrimental effects of Executive Orders, the reversal of the Justice Department's stance on voting rights, and the consequences of political retribution.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally.
