President Donald Trump's latest promise to eliminate mail-in voting through executive action faces significant constitutional hurdles that could render his efforts largely symbolic. The president announced this week that "the best lawyers in the country" are drafting an executive order to end mail-in ballots, calling them "corrupt."
Trump's political motivations became clear during Monday's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. He claimed mail-in voting is "the only way Democrats can get elected," even though mail-in ballots partially contributed to his own 2024 victory over Kamala Harris.
The president's longstanding opposition to mail-in voting stems from unproven claims about the 2020 election. He's repeatedly alleged voter fraud through mail-in ballots and voting machines, though no evidence has substantiated these accusations.
Mail-in voting allows citizens to cast ballots from home rather than visiting polling locations. Eight states plus Washington D.C. conduct all elections entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington state. Notably, only two of these - Nevada and Utah - supported Trump in 2024.
Most other states permit voters to request absentee ballots, which they can return by mail or special dropboxes. The COVID-19 pandemic boosted mail-in voting's popularity in 2020, when 43% of votes were cast by mail compared to 30% in 2024.
Constitutional Roadblocks to Presidential Action
The U.S. Constitution presents a major obstacle to Trump's executive order ambitions. Article I, Section 4 states that election procedures "shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." While Congress can modify these regulations, the Constitution doesn't grant presidents authority over state election administration.
Legal experts unanimously reject Trump's interpretation of federal authority. UCLA election law professor Rick Hasen called the president's claims "wrong and dangerous," emphasizing that "the Constitution does not give the President any control over federal elections."
Trump countered on Truth Social, arguing states serve as mere "agents" for the federal government in vote counting and tabulation. He insisted that states "must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them."
This interpretation contradicts established constitutional law. While Congress can regulate presidential and congressional elections, it cannot interfere with states' own elections for positions like governor.
Republican Embrace of Mail-In Voting
Trump's current stance creates an ironic contradiction with recent Republican strategy. During the 2024 campaign, he encouraged supporters to "vote any way possible," and the Republican Party actively promoted mail-in voting.
At least three Trump-won states - North Carolina, Arizona, and Pennsylvania - saw Republicans embrace mail-in ballots enthusiastically. In some cases, Republicans outpaced Democrats in mail-in voting, according to a Politico analysis.
Research hasn't demonstrated that mail-in voting provides Democrats with inherent advantages, despite Trump's claims. While Democratic voters have historically used mail-in ballots more frequently since 2020, this pattern doesn't translate into electoral bias.
The president's shifting position reflects political calculations rather than a consistent principle. His 2024 campaign's success with mail-in voters undermines his current argument that the method is fundamentally corrupt.
International Context and Perspective
Trump initially claimed the United States is unique in allowing mail-in voting worldwide. He quickly walked back these remarks, acknowledging he "may be wrong."
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance reports that 34 countries permit some form of mail-in voting. Twelve countries, including Canada, Germany, and South Korea, allow all voters to cast mail ballots in elections.
The U.S. has utilized mail-in voting since the 19th century, though methods have evolved considerably. Trump's characterization of mail-in voting as unprecedented or uniquely American lacks historical and international context.
Looking Ahead to 2026
The practical impact of Trump's proposed executive order remains questionable. Constitutional limitations prevent presidents from unilaterally changing state election procedures, regardless of executive order language.
State legislatures retain primary authority over election administration within their borders. Unless Congress acts through proper legislative channels, Trump's order would likely face immediate court challenges and likely defeat.
The announcement appears designed more for political messaging than practical policy change. Trump's base remains skeptical of mail-in voting despite the method's role in his recent electoral success.
The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between federal and state authority in American elections. Washington's political landscape continues to grapple with these fundamental constitutional questions as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
Most election law experts anticipate that mail-in voting will remain largely unchanged regardless of Trump's executive action. The Constitution's clear delegation of election authority to states provides robust protection against federal overreach in this area.
0 Comments