Trump is planning voting reform
A new announcement from Trump:
In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump announced, “I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES.” He argued that such machines cost “Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.”
Trump said the United States stands alone in continuing to use widespread mail-in voting. “We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED,” he wrote.
The president made clear that he intends to act quickly, pledging to use executive authority to move the plan forward. “WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump said.
He also challenged the notion that states hold full control over election administration.
I assume the plan is that the EO is just the beginning to set the tone, and that Congress would need to act. It’s not even clear to me that Congress could keep states from having their own rules about mail-in voting, because although states don’t hold full control over federal election rules in their own states, they definitely have some. How far does that control go? I don’t think it’s clear.
When the Democrats were in power, they kept trying to pass HR1, which would have eliminated the states’ ability to impose certain aspects of voting security on federal elections, and been in some ways the reverse of what Trump is now trying to do. The measure didn’t pass, and therefore its constitutionality or unconstitutionality was never determined. Same with any bill a GOP-led Congress might pass in order to control mail-in voting and the like – its constitutionality would almost certainly be challenged. It’s definitely worth a try, though, because I think the reforms are needed.
I can only hope this works out.
Vote fraud is the Democrats play book
Think of all the things which might have been done in response to the hanging chads mess of 2000:
==
A. Hold elections on Friday evening, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon.
==
B. Limit issuance of postal ballots to people with an abiding impediment to voting in person. (E.g. civilian federal employees posted abroad, servicemen, spouses residing with one or the other, college students under 25, homebound persons, &c).
==
C. Expanding the number of voting precincts. (Georgia is notorious for long queues as they have one precinct for every 6,000 residents; New York in my day had one for every 1,000).
==
D. Making it the law that all postal ballots are to be in the mail to those with a standing order for one by 15 September and arranging your electoral calendar to meet that deadline.
==
E. Requiring signature checks on completed postal ballots be undertaken the business day after their arrival at the county board of elections and then locking the ballots away in cabinets wtih two locks – one for the Democratic elections commissioner and one for the Republican commissioner.
==
F. Making it the law that postal ballots are deemed validly cast if they arrive in the mail the business day before in person voting begins. No more puzzling over postmarks. If you send them out in time, this is fair. Ballots arriving later can be locked away in cabinets with two locks and returned to sender when the results are certified. The implications of this is that all postal ballots are counted at a central facility as in-person voting is taking place.
==
G. Ending the practice of allowing affidavit ballots and providing for write-in votes. You accommodate almost no one and it delays the completion of tallies.
==
H. Requiring that any tabulation machines be analog, not networked, and subject to testing every year by teams consisting of a Republican clerk and a Democratic clerk. Alternative: manual tabulation and hard copy tallies.
==
I. Rearrange terms of office so that you can have a regular quadrennial cycle and present voters with a predictable array of offices every year. Each office should serve a four year term or a whole-number multiple of four years.
==
J. Move competitive judicial elections, competitive elections to offices auxilliary to or adjacent to the courts, retention-in-office referenda on such offices, and ballot propositions to May.
==
K. Make it the default setting that you elect legislators, general executives, trial judges, and school boards. Make deputies (e.g. Lt. Governors) appointive positions. Make specialty executives or quasi-executives appointive until and unless a voter initiative requires a given position be elective or subject to a retention-in-office referendum. Allow in any locality the mode of regulating the tenure of such elective offices to be reconsidered once every six years and require an automatic referendum every 30 years if no petitioned reconsideration has taken place. If the town treasurer or the Secretary of State is to be elective, have it so because the question has been considered by the electorate, not because someone thought it a satisfactory idea in 1846 and no one bothered thereafter. Assign elections to such offices to a particular berth in a quadrennial cycle.
The Ds will fight this until the bitter end. This strikes right at their heart.
The screeching and screaming of the Democrats will be deafening!
Trump hitting the Dems again. Right now they are Punch Drunk, but they will come back sometimes.
A while ago, I thought that if Trump were to pursue voting integrity, then it would indicate he is serious about returning power to the electorate at the expense of the powers that be (and cheat to get their way). I hope ballot harvesting is in the cross hairs also. Earlier, he cut off the flow of dollars to the left’s NGOs that were used to pursue the left’s agenda using taxpayer dollars regardless of what voters indicated in elections. Also, going after non-citizens being included in the census for apportionment of representatives. These are not effete gestures. I think he is in it to win it.
Democrat/ Marxists will claw and scratch all the way down. They know they are in need of vote fraud.
And what Democrat enclave won’t cheat again, running votes counted again? Without over view its child play to cheat.
I hope he can succeed. Mail in voting in WA marked the end of any GOP candidates winning statewide or federal offices. Turned us into a one-party state, like CA and OR.
Bless your heart POTUS. Good luck because it will be a tough fight.
It’s not clear to me that Trump has the authority to do this, or even that Congress does, unfortunately.
As J.J. says, elections on the Left Coast are entirely unreliable.
“I hope he can succeed. Mail in voting in WA marked the end of any GOP candidates winning statewide or federal offices. Turned us into a one-party state, like CA and OR.”
CO too, a couple years later. Someone the other day was telling about the state pushing voting parties, where everyone sat around together, filled out their ballots, and one of them would drop them off. Which actually means that the state encouraged bundling of ballots. In the 2022 elections, in AZ, the same people were dropping off bundles of ballots at a series of drop off boxes, day in, and day out. No surprise then that the Sec of State overseeing that election is now the Governor, and her replacement, as well as the AG, are, if anything, even more corrupt. All three are reportedly under control of the drug cartels.
— physicsguy
Not ‘will’, they already are. When Trump first returned to office, he pitched a blizzard of claims and efforts and nonsense at them, leaving them unsure what to swing at and what to let pass. We’re partly past that stage now.
Now the Dems have settled on the issues where they must maintain the status quo, because it’s a political survival issue. That’s open borders immigration, birthright citizenship, and unlimited voting options. From their POV, they must prevail there.
Don’t misunderstand me, the Democratic Party as an organization could survive just fine if Trump managed to close the border and choke off their stream of illegals and shut down their election shenanigans. But it would be a different Democratic Party in that scenario, with different leaders and a different dominant faction. It would probably be forced over time into a form more or less similar to what it was before 1968-72.
This is less about the Democratic Party surviving and more about the power and social status and monetary interests of the current ruling social class. The Democratic Party just happens to be its current vehicle.
These are laudable goals. On policy, I agree 100%. But show me where the president is granted the power to do anything that Trump is purporting to do with this EO?
Too often,Trump is all about winning the news cycle rather than actually accomplishing anything. It’s a perfect example of Moynihan’s boob bait for bubba. If Trump were serious about trying to accomplishing any of these things, he wouldn’t be leading with a clearly unconstitutional EO that will be struck down in a New York minute and never heard from again.
This is an abuse of power for the purpose of firing up the base. Judging by the comments here, it seems to have worked.
It all began with the motor voter law then after 2000, they went to digital which became more unaccountable i worked this for 15 years so i know a little about it
Why do you think elections became more unreliable in the last 30 years
And why did they protest in 2000 2004 and 2016 with no consequences yet they criminalized any criticism most recently against one america news
It seems that secure elections are required for a Republican form of government. So the Federal Government seems required to interfere if corruption in voting gets too bad or even seems suspect.
Also, it appears the Feds have been failing on the protection from invasion for decades.
I have to agree with Bauxite and Kate. An EO doesn’t carry the Constitutional authority of changing state election laws. But, like everything else he does, this is just the opening cannon shot by Trump to get the issue moving. It will really be up to Congress to change the regulations. Red states, such as my Florida, have already limited mail-in voting. If all the red states follow through that could have some impact.
I don’t think an EO is valid. Article I section 4 has
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, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So this is a power of Congress and the States, not the executive. It sounds like ONLY the method of chusing (sic) Senators requires an amendment (CF the seventeenth amendment whose wisdom may be questioned) so a simple Congressional act should suffice. Although at least one of the Supreme Justices (and perhaps as many as three) would have objections, even though the language is as plain as the nose on your face that Congress “may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations”. Article II has nothing obvious on presidential elections (it refers only to electors chosen by the states) so one MIGHT make an argument that that is fully in the realm of the State Legislatures, although there clearly is the precedent of Congressional legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act affecting the right and nature of Presidential voting. For 2026 it is Congress that matters and the nature of those votes are clearly within its purview. Getting something useful passed where some of the more RINO flavored Republican Congresscritters and Senators are involved is a wholly different issue.
Bauxite:
In this case, Trump’s wording indicates he doesn’t even see this EO as having the ability to actually implement anything. No abuse of power; pay attention to the words. He said he’s going to “lead a movement” to get rid of these things, which indicates to me that the EO acts as motivator for others to follow in order to accomplish these things. He says he will begin this effort by signing the EO. It is clear to me he expects others – Congress – to finish the effort.
Even that might be held unconstitutional, but maybe not. That one’s a judgment call. It is well worth a try.
This isn’t going to change the voting laws for 2026 one iota.
The worst case scenario here is if Trump gets the base all fired up against mail-in voting just in time to . . . handicap Republican GOTV efforts for the 2026 midterms by reminding the base why they are suspicious of mail-in voting.
neo – I can’t think of a reasonable argument that any EO doing anything close to what Trump is proposing would be constitutional. If you see something, let us know.
Back in the day, we on the right used to criticize Obama, Biden, Steven “they can’t catch them all” Reinhardt and other leftists for deliberately doing things that were or were likely to be unconstitutional just to push the boundaries in their preferred partisan direction. Now many of us are rationalizing Trump doing the same thing.
Another possibility is that Trump will sign a constitutional EO that is somehow related to election law, but nothing at all like what he proposes.
Bauxite:
Did you understand what I wrote? I’ll repeat: his EO does not appear to be assuming such action will happen because of the EO itself. It’s “leading” towards a goal that Congress will take up. Whether what Congress will do is constitutional is the question. I’ve thought long and hard about that – including when the Democrats tried to pass HR1. I don’t know the answer; I think whether it’s Democrats or Republicans trying to pass federal laws of that sort that override what states want, it’s something SCOTUS will ultimately decide if and when such federal laws are passed by Congress.
neo – I understand what you wrote but, with all due respect, you’re spinning what Trump wrote. Here’s the excerpt from the tweet about the EO:
“WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections. Remember, the States are merely an “agent” for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”
This is the typical Trumpian abuse of the English language, but I can’t see how you read this as saying that the EO is simply to lead towards a goal that Congress will take up. The word “Congress” does not appear in the tweet. And the two sentences after the one about the EO, in addition to being complete legal gibberish, clearly suggest that the states will have to do whatever Trump tells them.
Again, it’s typical Trump, so you could plausibly read it about four different ways. It wouldn’t be inconsistent with the language of the tweet for an EO to “begin this effort” that will eventually include Congress, but that’s not what the man wrote and arguably not what the language suggests.