FINALLY: Trump gets what he DESERVES in court

The executive order claimed the President and his administration could create a national list of eligible voters, share this list with states, and restrict states to sending mail-in ballots only to those on the federal list. It also proposed the Postal Service would only carry ballots for individuals on this federally approved list.

The executive order is breathtaking. I mean, it is beyond anything that you could imagine a president of United States claiming the power to do. He basically says that he and his administration will create a list that they're going to create of who is eligible to vote in this country. Okay. They'll then share that list of who they think should be allowed to vote with the states. And the states are only allowed to send out mail-in ballots to people who are on that list. And the postal service, to add one more cherry to the top, the postal service will not carry the mail-in ballots from any state to any person if it's if the states don't agree with this.

Attorney Mark Elias, representing the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic groups, filed a lawsuit against the executive order within 24 hours of its issuance. This rapid response is part of a deliberate strategy to prevent the unconstitutional actions from gaining a foothold or being normalized through repetition, a perceived mistake from past Democratic responses.

Yeah, we sued him. I mean, I I told him in advance if if he tries to take over voting in this country, he's going to get sued. He's going to get fa sued fast and he's going to lose. Well, he's gotten sued. He got sued fast. We filed within the first 24 hours. ... We cannot let Donald Trump gain a foothold of letting time tick while these illegal and unconstitutional actions settle in. This is I think one of the mistakes that frankly Democrats made in the past is that they they're like, 'Well, what Donald Trump is doing is so clearly illegal. We don't kind of don't have to worry about it.'

The lawsuit challenging the executive order has been assigned to the same federal district court judge in Washington D.C. who previously ruled against a similar anti-voting executive order issued by Trump. This prior ruling stated the president has 'no role' in regulating federal elections, suggesting a precedent for the current case.

The case is assigned back to the same federal district court judge in Washington DC that I sued uh and won the last time Donald Trump passed uh put forward an executive order uh to regulate voting. People don't remember last April he put forward an anti- voting executive order and at that time I sued also on behalf of the Democratic party and we won. And that federal judge said that the that the president has no role, that's the judge's words, no role in regulating um uh the federal elections.

The executive order is framed as a continuation of previous attempts to restrict voting, such as the 'SAVE Act.' These efforts use 'voter ID' as a public relations tactic to mask broader measures like making voter registration harder (e.g., proof of citizenship requirements), requiring ID for mail-in voting, outright banning no-excuse absentee voting, and implementing federal voter purge lists.

The Save Act in some respects was a reaction to that, right? There just a statutory effort to get at the same thing. Uh and now we have this executive order which is also if you think about it like a a an extension of the SAVE Act, right? What was the Save Act really about? It wasn't about voter ID. Voter ID was added to it at the last minute. And and when you look at that ID law, part of that ID law was targeting mail-in voting. ... And the four parts of the Save Act that people need to keep in mind, okay? Cuz you're going to keep hearing this come up over and over again in other forums like in this litigation. Number one, there was a provision to make it harder to register to vote. ... Number two, it targets voting by mail by saying in order to vote by mail, you need to show ID. ... The third is just an outright ban on on on mailin voting... And then the fourth, Brian, is the purge provision, right? It's it's requiring states to accept from the federal government purge lists.