Curious what they're proposing (if anybody's thought that far ahead) of how citizenship will be verified, what documents will be acceptable as proof. For native-born USAians that's a birth certificate (from a state, or territory) or a passport (and the former's usually needed to acquire the latter). We hear about how those in red states don't have passports; will birth certificate/passport scrutiny now become part of the process of registering to vote? Maybe they'll push this verification down to the state level, so it'll be up to the DMV to verify, and issue new RealID+ drivers licenses.
posted by Rash at 2:07 PM on March 26

Curious what they're proposing (if anybody's thought that far ahead) of how citizenship will be verified

<peter_griffin_color_chart_meme.gif>
posted by logicpunk at 2:12 PM on March 26 [18 favorites]

Curious what they're proposing (if anybody's thought that far ahead) of how citizenship will be verified, what documents will be acceptable as proof. For native-born USAians that's a birth certificate (from a state, or territory) or a passport (and the former's usually needed to acquire the latter).

This is obviously intended to target transgender people (those in regressive states like Texas can't get their birth certificates amended, and the State Department's new policy on passports is "gender assigned at birth").
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:13 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]

Maybe they'll push this verification down to the state level, so it'll be up to the DMV to verify, and issue new RealID+ drivers licenses

The order mentions passports, RealID-compliant IDs, and military IDs specifically, as well as

a valid Federal or State government-issued photo identification if such identification indicates that the applicant is a United States citizen or if such identification is otherwise accompanied by proof of United States citizenship
posted by atoxyl at 2:14 PM on March 26

Feel the need to point out how service members get screwed. Mail lag for those overseas can vary wildly, causing absentee voting to be historically problematic. This would make the problem worse.
posted by Enturbulated at 2:24 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]

It's pretty important to note that the Federal Government doesn't run elections, states do, so 90% of this is sort of... irrelevant. Assuming that anybody wants to be told enough to tell this administration "no" in any way, which doesn't seem to be the case. But, y'know, if anybody cares.
posted by Tomorrowful at 2:25 PM on March 26 [12 favorites]

Every day it gets more obvious he plans to install himself for life. Good thing he's an old man whose cholesterol has got to be off the charts.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:30 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]

Tomorrowful > It's pretty important to note that the Federal Government doesn't run elections, states do, so 90% of this is sort of... irrelevant. Assuming that anybody wants to be told enough to tell this administration "no" in any way, which doesn't seem to be the case. But, y'know, if anybody cares.

Given that the current administration is treating the letter and spirit of the law as suggestions from the crazy uncle nobody ever wants to talk about, and court orders much the same...
posted by Enturbulated at 2:32 PM on March 26 [7 favorites]

I’ve heard that some service members overseas vote via computer (horrifying from an election security perspective). I wonder how this would affect that.
posted by Orthodox Humanoid at 2:36 PM on March 26

While the focus of all the articles appears to be what is stated in the EO, they do also allude to the fact that the federal government doesn't have the (direct) authority to actually mandate any of these things. As Josh Marshall of TPM observes (emph. added):

Most people, including a lot of journalists, don’t understand what an executive order even is. It’s not a law or even a quasi-law. An executive order is really just a memo from the president to his staff (in this sense, his staff of two million civil servants) to take certain actions. Do this and don’t do that. Enforce this law in that way. Those can be actions the Constitution empowers him to take or ones Congress specifically assigns to him through laws. I interpret the law this way, so take this action, etc. In areas where presidents have a lot of power — say, in border and immigration enforcement, for instance — executive orders are a big deal. Courts can say: no, the law or the Constitution doesn’t empower you or allow you to do those things. But executives act and courts mostly react. So in this area of broad executive power, they’re a big deal. That’s also where you get into the territory of genuine constitutional crises and potential presidential dictatorship, because the outer limits of some of those powers aren’t clearly charted.

But presidents have little to no power over election administration. States administer American elections, for state and federal office. Congress is empowered to create certain baseline rules for how states administer elections, in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. But that’s the federal role — a critical fact under present circumstances, as I noted a week ago. The president has very little power beyond having the Justice Department bring lawsuits over claimed constitutional infractions or failure to follow federal law. In other words, an executive order on election administration is mostly meaningless — and this is the case for multiple reasons, including some I alluded to a week ago. Elections are administered by state officials and they are part of a separate, untethered sovereignty. The U.S. president can’t fire a governor or a mayor, ever. Federal law is supreme over state law. That makes states subordinate to but still not at the command of the president. They’re separate sovereignties. It is as though the tendons or drawwires that connect a head of state down to local government in a unitary state have simply been severed in a federal one. He doesn’t just lack the authority. He lacks the power. As I explained Monday, the real issue is going to come when the president tries to use his unauthorized power to extort compliance by withholding money.

So, it is far from a fait accompli despite the headline tone of many articles. However, the threat of withholding federal money from states that don't comply with federal policies can be extremely real. From what I understand, it's the reason that the drinking age is 21 in every state . Whether they go down this route (which may require Congressional legislation like the Minimum Drinking Age Act or maybe just asking Elon to turn off the money) or just decide to try to steamroll the states somehow remains to be seen.
posted by mhum at 2:37 PM on March 26 [11 favorites]

They are setting ground work to deny blue states federal money over free elections and contest and reject unfavorable election outcomes. This is 100% to stop 2026 and 2028 national elections. The harm to poor and minorities is just a bonus.

> Curious what they're proposing ... what documents will be acceptable as proof.

Honestly this doesn't really matter. It's a executive order, not a written law. The specifics can and will be changed at as needed to support his voting suppression goals. I know it FEELS like it should matter a lot, what the contents of the new rules say, I remember the rules-based society we had a few weeks ago. But that's not current reality.

> Federal Government doesn't run elections, states do

The order cuts federal funding for non-compliance. There is no world where a blue state will be found compliant.
posted by anti social order at 2:37 PM on March 26 [11 favorites]

Given that the current administration is treating the letter and spirit of the law as suggestions from the crazy uncle nobody ever wants to talk about, and court orders much the same

It’s not, like, a legal formality that states are responsible for elections - states execute the procedure of elections. So the question is what kind of penalties can the feds bring to bear? It’s pretty clear what’s intended is to attach strings to funding but less clear exactly what that means.
posted by atoxyl at 2:56 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]

Christ what an asshole/fascist
posted by Windopaene at 3:03 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]

I think the other big thing to keep an eye on is how the red state legislatures and Secretaries of State react. As noted, election administration is up to the states. So if the red states all take their marching orders from these EOs, I'm not sure what can be done to stop them if the state legislatures and executives decide that they're all on board with this plan. I suppose local, state-level opposition to this kind of disenfranchisement may be necessary.
posted by mhum at 3:07 PM on March 26

States Rights but not THIS
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 3:14 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]

atoxyl > It’s not, like, a legal formality that states are responsible for elections - states execute the procedure of elections. So the question is what kind of penalties can the feds bring to bear? It’s pretty clear what’s intended is to attach strings to funding but less clear exactly what that means.

I submit to you that when enforcement mechanisms cannot function, or flatly refuse to function, then the sum total of the law actually is nothing more than politely worded suggestion. In this particular case, there will be some push back, though I do strongly suspect the added fuckery will be more than enough to skew the next few elections.
posted by Enturbulated at 3:31 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]

This would, if enacted at the State level, disenfranchise every woman who changed her name after marriage (and the small number of men in a similar situation). Her birth certificate would no longer match the name on her other ID. So, not only trans individuals, but all others who have legally changed their name since birth and have not gotten a passport under the new name.
posted by drossdragon at 4:03 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]

I submit to you that when enforcement mechanisms cannot function, or flatly refuse to function, then the sum total of the law actually is nothing more than politely worded suggestion.

My point is that in this case the policy for which the actual enforcement mechanism is fuzzy is the EO.
posted by atoxyl at 4:15 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]

Imho, there are very few perks to having dual citizenship, but a guaranteed perk was my right, as a person born in the US, to vote. If they make that harder or take that away, then I really don't have a reason to keep my citizenship. This makes me incredibly angry.
posted by Kitteh at 4:16 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]

Hey all, it's not just an executive order, watch out for HR 22 "the SAVE Act" see nonprofitvote.org which the house is expected to take up next week. If passed into law by the legislature, it will be harder to challenge and overturn than an executive order.

I called my trump-butt-kisser rep to urge her to vote no... but it's begun to feel fairly futile, other than as a cry of protest.
posted by evilmomlady at 4:20 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]

Just in case it wasn't clear enough before, Elon jokes notwithstanding, Stephen Miller is the person actually closest to running the country right now.

I would like to have some optimism here (a la Josh Marshall, who remains an essential read), but given the realities of the electoral college and the Imperial Supreme Court, I'm sure there will be enough messiness and/or room for legal shenanigans that this will probably put the Presidency de facto out of reach for any opposition party for at least two or three cycles, and without any real end point in sight. Over that time, it will also dramatically increase cynicism and indifference around elections, which is always the strongman's true aim.

Plus, it's only March of 2025 and we're already here. And also plus (and perhaps more importantly), the press, as expressed by the tone and framing of their coverage, remain just fine with all of this. That's a real problem that no amount of Federalism from blue state governors will fix.

If there is an upside, it is that it makes the eventual Balkanization of the country that much more likely. Not that I'm remotely rosy-eyed about how that might work out, but (for those of us on the West Coast at least) it remains a contender for a "less worst" possibility down the line.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 4:27 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]

Atoxyl > My point is that in this case the policy for which the actual enforcement mechanism is fuzzy is the EO.

Ah. Pardon, I'm being blinded by anger about the everything again. Not cool, but hopefully at least understandable.
posted by Enturbulated at 4:27 PM on March 26

If voting led you to this, of what use was the voting?
posted by Lemkin at 4:50 PM on March 26

Every day it gets more obvious he plans to install himself for life.

For life, but not for long.
posted by JohnFromGR at 4:59 PM on March 26

Lemkin > If voting led you to this, of what use was the voting?

It's not just the voting that got us here, but voting combined with the deliberately engineered lack of an educated and engaged populace.
posted by Enturbulated at 5:24 PM on March 26

You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.