The Daily Populous Thursday June 18th, 2026 day edition
Authored by democracydocket.com and submitted by Anoth3rDude

“No one really disagrees” that President Donald Trump’s recent mail ballot executive order calling for the creation of federal voter registration lists “is flagrantly unlawful,” Democrats argued Wednesday in a filing asking a federal appellate court to block it.

They noted that the administration has already taken key steps to implement the order, adding urgency to their request for courts to stop it before confusing voters this fall.

After Trump signed the executive order in March, which ordered the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to send mail ballots only to voters on lists created and controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration, Democratic groups led by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly sued.* But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the preliminary injunction last month, saying it would be premature to issue it when the federal agencies hadn’t begun implementation yet.

The Democratic plaintiffs appealed that decision and filed a brief Wednesday aimed at addressing Nichols’ concern.

“At bottom, the district court erred in treating this case as a run-of-the-mill rulemaking case, finding that Plaintiffs must wait until USPS issues a final rule transforming mail voting, and until DHS has finalized its citizen-resident lists — and prove that those lists have errors — before they can obtain relief,” plaintiffs wrote. “But this is not a rulemaking case. It is a separation of powers case. And there is no serious question that the President lacks authority to order his subordinates to conduct the action the E.O. requires, or that the agencies themselves lack authority to take that action.”

SIGN UP TODAY Get updates straight to your inbox — for free Join 350,000 readers who rely on our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest in voting, elections and democracy.

Since Nichols’ ruling, the federal government has moved swiftly to implement the order, which would represent an unprecedented expansion of the executive branch’s control over elections. The USPS published a rule proposal in late May, and DHS has issued multiple memos on implementation.

That means there are plenty of concrete steps being taken — actively harming Democrats and voters — in furtherance of a blatantly unconstitutional expansion of executive branch power over elections, the plaintiffs argued

“Those injuries stem from the Order’s very existence, which forces Plaintiffs to plan for new vote-by-mail rules to mitigate the injuries it threatens to its core business activities. Those injuries are present even while Defendants iron out the nuances of implementation—Plaintiffs must react and prepare now to be ready for elections just months away,” they wrote. “Finally, half of the supposed ‘contingencies’ the district court deemed unknowable have already actualized, just as the E.O. dictated by its plain terms: USPS issued a [proposed rule] on the E.O.’s timeline, and the [proposed rule] includes all of Section 3(b)’s mandates.”

The Democratic plaintiffs asked for an expedited review of their appeal, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted last week. The Trump administration and Republican states defending the order must now respond by June 29, and the Democratic plaintiffs’ reply is due July 6.

The three-judge panel that authorized the quick review will also hear oral arguments, which haven’t yet been scheduled: Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, who were appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Gregory Katsas, who was appointed by Trump.

In his ruling last month, Nichols concluded that the plaintiffs would need to show that the citizenship lists proposed by Trump’s order actually excluded eligible voters.

On Wednesday, the Democratic plaintiffs countered that was a misreading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bost v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, a 7-2 ruling from January that held that a U.S. House candidate had standing to challenge a state law ahead of the election, even though he couldn’t prove it harmed his chances of winning.

“Bost also rebuts the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs must show the Lists wrongfully exclude voters before they can obtain relief. Were that the rule, Bost would not have been able to sue until the ballot-receipt deadline he challenged resulted in the tabulation of contested ballots after the election,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The Supreme Court rejected that notion; candidates’ interest in fair elections process arises before ballots are cast, to ensure that they are competing in an environment that is not illegally structured.”

Democrats and voting-rights advocates argued that the citizenship lists, relying on DHS databases that have been shown to have serious flaws, would lead to eligible voters having their registrations revoked and prevented from casting ballots.

Trump’s executive order is also being challenged by pro-voting activists and Democratic-led states in Massachusetts. At oral argument early this month, a federal judge there sounded more skeptical of the federal government’s defense of the executive order, but she has yet to issue a ruling.

The mail-in ballot executive order is Trump’s second attempt to unconstitutionally regulate voting via diktat this term. Federal judges in D.C. and Massachusetts blocked the bulk of his first, signed in March 2025, within a month of its issuance. That order aimed to impose a proof of citizenship requirement for registering to vote, among other restrictions.

Despite the president’s claims, mail voting is safe and secure, as Trump demonstrated himself by voting by mail just weeks before signing the order.

*The Democratic plaintiffs in this case are represented by Elias Law Group (ELG). ELG firm chair, Marc Elias, is the founder of Democracy Docket.

Thor_2099 on June 17th, 2026 at 23:15 UTC »

God damn these fucking fascists. Have to do every god damn thing under the sun to win elections except actually help people.

Senior-Consultant on June 17th, 2026 at 22:54 UTC »

Does the congress or senate even exist at this point ?

B-Z_B-S on June 17th, 2026 at 22:46 UTC »

(Full text of the article): "“No one really disagrees” that President Donald Trump’s recent mail ballot executive order calling for the creation of federal voter registration lists “is flagrantly unlawful,” Democrats argued Wednesday in a filing asking a federal appellate court to block it. They noted that the administration has already taken key steps to implement the order, adding urgency to their request for courts to stop it before confusing voters this fall.

After Trump signed the executive order in March, which ordered the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to send mail ballots only to voters on lists created and controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration, Democratic groups led by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly sued.* But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the preliminary injunction last month, saying it would be premature to issue it when the federal agencies hadn’t begun implementation yet.

The Democratic plaintiffs appealed that decision and filed a brief Wednesday aimed at addressing Nichols’ concern. “At bottom, the district court erred in treating this case as a run-of-the-mill rulemaking case, finding that Plaintiffs must wait until USPS issues a final rule transforming mail voting, and until DHS has finalized its citizen-resident lists — and prove that those lists have errors — before they can obtain relief,” plaintiffs wrote. “But this is not a rulemaking case. It is a separation of powers case. And there is no serious question that the President lacks authority to order his subordinates to conduct the action the E.O. requires, or that the agencies themselves lack authority to take that action.”

Since Nichols’ ruling, the federal government has moved swiftly to implement the order, which would represent an unprecedented expansion of the executive branch’s control over elections. The USPS published a rule proposal in late May, and DHS has issued multiple memos on implementation.

That means there are plenty of concrete steps being taken — actively harming Democrats and voters — in furtherance of a blatantly unconstitutional expansion of executive branch power over elections, the plaintiffs argued “Those injuries stem from the Order’s very existence, which forces Plaintiffs to plan for new vote-by-mail rules to mitigate the injuries it threatens to its core business activities. Those injuries are present even while Defendants iron out the nuances of implementation—Plaintiffs must react and prepare now to be ready for elections just months away,” they wrote. “Finally, half of the supposed ‘contingencies’ the district court deemed unknowable have already actualized, just as the E.O. dictated by its plain terms: USPS issued a [proposed rule] on the E.O.’s timeline, and the [proposed rule] includes all of Section 3(b)’s mandates.”

The Democratic plaintiffs asked for an expedited review of their appeal, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted last week. The Trump administration and Republican states defending the order must now respond by June 29, and the Democratic plaintiffs’ reply is due July 6. The three-judge panel that authorized the quick review will also hear oral arguments, which haven’t yet been scheduled: Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins, who were appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Gregory Katsas, who was appointed by Trump. In his ruling last month, Nichols concluded that the plaintiffs would need to show that the citizenship lists proposed by Trump’s order actually excluded eligible voters.

On Wednesday, the Democratic plaintiffs countered that was a misreading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bost v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, a 7-2 ruling from January that held that a U.S. House candidate had standing to challenge a state law ahead of the election, even though he couldn’t prove it harmed his chances of winning. “Bost also rebuts the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs must show the Lists wrongfully exclude voters before they can obtain relief. Were that the rule, Bost would not have been able to sue until the ballot-receipt deadline he challenged resulted in the tabulation of contested ballots after the election,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The Supreme Court rejected that notion; candidates’ interest in fair elections process arises before ballots are cast, to ensure that they are competing in an environment that is not illegally structured.”

Democrats and voting-rights advocates argued that the citizenship lists, relying on DHS databases that have been shown to have serious flaws, would lead to eligible voters having their registrations revoked and prevented from casting ballots.

Trump’s executive order is also being challenged by pro-voting activists and Democratic-led states in Massachusetts. At oral argument early this month, a federal judge there sounded more skeptical of the federal government’s defense of the executive order, but she has yet to issue a ruling. The mail-in ballot executive order is Trump’s second attempt to unconstitutionally regulate voting via diktat this term. Federal judges in D.C. and Massachusetts blocked the bulk of his first, signed in March 2025, within a month of its issuance. That order aimed to impose a proof of citizenship requirement for registering to vote, among other restrictions.

Despite the president’s claims, mail voting is safe and secure, as Trump demonstrated himself by voting by mail just weeks before signing the order."