New Jersey has officially stepped into a major legal battle, joining 18 other states in suing former President Donald Trump over his sweeping executive order on voting. The lawsuit argues that Trump’s latest move is an unconstitutional power grab that threatens the integrity of state-run elections and seeks to override existing laws without congressional approval.
What’s the Big Issue?
Last week, Trump signed an executive order aimed at reshaping election rules across the country. Among the major changes, it mandates documentary proof of citizenship to vote and sets a strict deadline—mail-in ballots must arrive by election day to be counted. This order would also impact military voters, who have historically been given some leeway due to overseas mailing delays.
State attorneys general, including New Jersey’s Matthew Platkin, say Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these kinds of election mandates without approval from Congress.
A Threat to Funding?
One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s executive order is the threat to cut off funding for states that don’t comply. According to Platkin, the former president is using extreme measures to strong-arm states into submission.
“He’s threatening to withhold election funding, homeland security funding, and even law enforcement funding,” Platkin warned. “These are extreme punishments for states that are simply exercising their constitutional rights.”
A Battle Over State Authority
Election laws have long been managed at the state level, and this move is being widely criticized as a federal overreach. New Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office has framed Trump’s order as yet another attempt to seize powers that belong to individual states and lawmakers.
“The president has consistently tried to act like a king—taking powers that belong to Congress, the courts, and in this case, the states,” Platkin said. “And he’s using them to punish states that don’t bow to his will. This is about more than just politics—this is about protecting the fundamental right to vote.”
The Bigger Picture
Trump has been a vocal critic of mail-in voting since his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden, frequently claiming—without evidence—that it led to widespread fraud. His new executive order is being seen by many as a direct attempt to restrict voting access, particularly for groups that historically rely on mail-in ballots.
The White House, however, defended the order, stating, “The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election.”
Critics argue that this move disproportionately impacts certain voters, particularly military personnel, elderly citizens, and those in rural areas who may face mailing delays.
A United Front Against the Order
New Jersey is far from alone in this fight. Platkin has joined forces with attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin in challenging the executive order.
Calling the move “the most egregious attack on voting rights by a president in our recent history,” Platkin and his counterparts are determined to block its implementation through the courts.
What Happens Next?
This legal battle is just beginning, and it’s likely to be a heated one. If Trump’s order is allowed to stand, it could set a precedent for future executive actions that bypass state election laws. But if the courts rule against him, it will reinforce the long-standing principle that election rules should be determined by individual states, not the White House.
For now, voters and state officials alike are waiting to see how this high-stakes fight will unfold. One thing is certain: the debate over voting rights in America is far from over.
Login