Federal court hears arguments over efforts to halt Trump's mail-in executive order

A federal judge has heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Donald Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting, The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits ...

BOSTON -- A federal judge heard Tuesday from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Donald Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting,

The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order aimed at ensuring only citizens vote should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move puts a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear over concerns they could be prosecuted.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in the other lawsuit, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide." The group said the orders transforms "the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”

“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.

The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Republican Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

The Trump administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referenced were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.

Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list but it was “unlikely” that any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.

“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that "we don't want this process to be strangled in th