A federal judge has taken a major step to block Donald Trump from carrying out a plan that could have made it much harder for many Americans to vote. Trump had issued an executive order on March 25 called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” This order instructed the independent Election Assistance Commission, which helps manage voting systems across the country, to change the national mail-in voter registration form. Trump wanted the form to require people to prove they are U.S. citizens by showing specific government-issued identification before they could register to vote or update their registration.
However, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly decided to put that order on hold. She made it clear that Trump’s plan could not move forward, at least for now. Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance explained on her Substack page that the judge’s decision was written with a lot of care and detail. When a judge writes such a thorough opinion, it usually means they are trying to make it very hard for a higher court to overturn their ruling. Vance pointed out that Kollar-Kotelly didn’t just deny Trump’s order; she explained exactly why Trump’s actions were not legally allowed. Although the judge did not grant everything the people challenging the order wanted, her ruling was well supported by strong legal reasoning.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly also reminded everyone of a very basic principle of American law: the president cannot create new laws or give himself powers that the Constitution or Congress have not given him. Executive orders are powerful tools, but they cannot be used to invent new authority out of thin air. Trump was trying to use an executive order to change how voter registration works across the country, but that’s something only Congress and the individual states have the right to regulate.
The reason elections in the United States are handled separately by each state and thousands of local governments is to prevent one person, including the president, from having too much influence. Joyce Vance explained that the way American elections are decentralized — meaning spread out and managed locally — makes it much harder for any one political party or leader to manipulate election results. Trump’s push to control voter registration rules shows, in her view, how openly he was trying to gather more power for himself.
Under Trump’s proposed changes, people would have had to present documents like a U.S. passport, a Real ID driver’s license, a military ID, or some other proof of citizenship just to register to vote. But Vance pointed out that millions of eligible American citizens don’t have these kinds of documents easily available. This would have made it much harder for many people — especially those who are poor, elderly, or from minority communities — to participate in elections.
Vance questioned the real reason behind Trump’s order. She said the excuse that voter fraud is a big problem has been proven false many times, especially when it comes to federal elections. Voter fraud is extremely rare, yet it continues to be used as a reason to pass laws that make it harder for some people to vote. Vance made it clear that these kinds of measures usually end up hurting qualified voters who have every right to participate in democracy.
The Constitution says very clearly that it is Congress and the states, not the president, who have the power to regulate federal elections. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling is important because it stands as a strong barrier against Trump’s attempt to shift that balance of power. Vance warned that actions like Trump’s are dangerous because they show how willing he is to act like an authoritarian leader, trying to grab control over parts of the government that are supposed to remain independent.
Vance also warned that the real danger is not just what Trump tried to do, but how easily people could get used to this kind of behavior if it happens often enough. She said that the risk is that Americans might start seeing such power grabs as normal, which would be a serious threat to the country’s democracy. This case, she argued, is a clear example of why it is so important to protect the rules and traditions that keep presidential power in check.
