Judge Strikes Citizenship Proof for Mail-In Voter Registration

The Trump administration can’t require proof of citizenship for mail-in voter registration applications, a federal judge ruled Friday, blocking that and other provisions of the president’s executive order directing changes to the nation’s elections.

Parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order directing the changes violate the separation of powers, Judge John H. Chun of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington said in a 75-page opinion, granting summary judgment as to those claims.

The portions of the executive order dealing with a single national voting form, set of guidelines, and certification process, such as the proof-of-citizenship requirement, may not be enforced, Chun said.

Explaining his decision to bar those parts of the executive order broadly, he said that “unless the [Election Assistance Commission] and its Commissioners, directors, and agents, are enjoined from implementing or giving effect to these provisions in full” plaintiffs can’t be granted full relief.

He said that this order complies with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v CASA, barring nationwide injunctions, because the relief he granted is no broader than necessary.

However, the provisions related to deadlines for ballot receipts were only blocked as they related to the Washington and Oregon plaintiffs, allowing those states to enforce their laws that permit counting of ballots received after Election Day, he said.

Trump directed the Election Assistance Commission in March to “take appropriate action” to require proof of citizenship in national mail voter registration applications, and tasked the Defense secretary to do the same for voter applications for servicemembers and overseas US citizens. The executive order also prohibits the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, puts new requirements on voting machine technology, and threatens states with federal investigations and the potential loss of funding if they don’t comply.

Washington and Oregon challenged several of the executive order’s provisions in April, joining several other lawsuits over the order, including one by 19 Democrat-led states targeting some of the same provisions. The federal judge in that case in July enjoined the administration from implementing some provisions of Trump’s order, including directives to require proof of citizenship and conditioning funding on adopting the ballot receipt deadline as to the plaintiff states, finding they’re likely unlawful.

The president “has no constitutional authority to interfere with state election laws” and is “threatening the foundation of our democracy” by attempting to assert “unilateral control” over the nation’s elections, Washington and Oregon argued in their motion for partial summary judgment.

Washington and Oregon laws both allow ballots to be counted if they’re cast on or before Election Day, but Trump’s executive order “attempts to preempt” those laws, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters and conditioning federal funding on doing so, the states argued. And the voting system certification requirements also pose a “concrete and particularized injury” to the plaintiff states, they argue, because it will take years for systems to get federally certified.

But the government argued in its motion to dismiss the suit that the states lack standing to bring their claims because there is no concrete injury.

Chun dismissed challenges to the executive order that were not based on the separation of powers, finding the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for the remaining claims.

“This case is not about whether the states, Congress, or the executive offer better or worse ways to run elections,” Chun said. “It is also not about whether the current laws governing American elections could benefit from updates or modifications. And the parties do not dispute the importance of fair elections.”

The case is State of Wash. v. Trump, W.D. Wash., No. 2:25-cv-00602, 1/9/26.