Attorney General Bonta co-leads multi-state challenge to President Trump’s sweeping election changes
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KEYT) – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, 23 other Attorneys General, and the Governor of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's recent executive order taking over elections nationwide.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that Executive Order No. 14399 issued on March 31 of this year and entitled Ensuring Citizenship Verification And Integrity In Federal Elections, unlawfully asserts federal oversight of state-managed elections.
"The President's latest attempt to interfere with the States’ administration of their elections is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional," opened Friday's lawsuit. "Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to restrict voter eligibility or mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government. Plaintiff States bring this action to safeguard their constitutional authority to administer state and federal elections."
California's Attorney General was joined by the Governor of Pennsylvania as well as Attorneys General from Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 4 that decisions regarding, "the times, places, and manner of holding Elections" are delegated to Congress and managed by each state.
The Section does not mention any executive branch position, office, or department.
"Once again, President Trump is trying to rewrite the rules of our elections. But he lacks the authority to do so," argued California Attorney General Rob Bonta. "The U.S. Constitution clearly gives States the primary authority over elections and gives zero authority to the President. This latest executive order is just another unlawful attempt to restrict voting, fueled by his fear of losing the upcoming midterm elections and based on wholly unfounded allegations of voter fraud."
Executive Order No. 14399 made sweeping changes to national elections in the following ways:
- Tasked the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a list of voters using federal databases and transmit that voter list to elections officials in each state at least 60 days before any federal election
- Directed the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service to develop lists of voters enrolled with the federal agency for mail-in voting and coordinate with the Department of Justice to investigate any use of mailed elections materials outside of federally authorized mail-in voting
- Ordered the Attorney General of the United States to take all lawful steps to stop non-compliance with the new elections rules and required states and localities to preserve all records of voter participation in any federal election for five years
"Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress confers upon the President the authority to mandate sweeping changes to States’ electoral systems or procedures," noted the lawsuit. "The EO [Executive Order] erects shadow voter eligibility lists within the federal government and uses threats of investigation and prosecution to coerce States into disenfranchising voters missing from those lists. It also directly interferes with mail voting by mandating that the United States Postal Service ("USPS") refuse to deliver voted ballots unless the voters are on USPS's precleared list, which is maintained outside the control of the States who administer federal elections. Finally, the EO purports to lengthen the existing period for elections officials to preserve elections records to facilitate threatened prosecutions, contradicting existing requirements in state and federal law. Plaintiff States challenge and seek relief from each of these provisions."
Friday's lawsuit noted that the changes would requires states to revise their respective election-related laws and procedures even after some states have already held primaries or are about to and months before voting procedures for the 2026 General Election begin nationwide.
"Even with Plaintiff States' best efforts, the EO has sown and will sow confusion and chaos in their election systems, together with the threat of disenfranchisement of States' voters," stated the lawsuit.
This isn't the first attempt to federalize elections during President Trump's second term.
On March 25 of last year, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14248 which was met with a lawsuit filed by a coalition of Attorneys General including Attorney General Bonta.
The group of state prosecutors secured a preliminary injunction that remains in effect and a motion to dismiss that lawsuit was denied by a federal judge in District Court in Massachusetts.
"On March 25, 2025, the President issued Executive Order No. 14248, Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, purporting to mandate sweeping changes to the rules for administering federal elections. Among other things, that Order sought to impose documentary proof of citizenship requirements—contrary to existing federal law—on federal voter registration forms," detailed Friday's lawsuit. "Three courts, including this Court, have so far preliminarily or permanently enjoined key provisions of that Order."
In addition to those sweeping, unilateral Executive Orders, the Department of Justice sent formal requests to over 40 states for copies of their respective voter lists and multiple states including California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania were sued by the federal government to force them to turn over their voter lists.
In October of last year, a class action lawsuit, League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, filed in federal court in Washington D.C., sought to halt the requests for voter information as well as the use of an existing federal database to double check state's voter registrations.
The database, known as the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, is a decades-old tool for state and federal agencies to verify citizenship status for people looking to access government programs or licenses.
Several states established new agreements with the federal government to expand the use of the SAVE database or announced its use to purge voter rolls, and the Department of Homeland Security made millions of dollars in election security funding for states dependent on the use of the database and compliance with submitting state information to the federal government.
"DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] has pursued an unprecedented initiative to obtain access to
confidential state voter registration information. It has demanded complete, unredacted voter
registration lists—which include voters' driver's license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security Numbers—from every State. It has declined offers to review States’ publicly available voter lists (i.e., without those confidential identifiers) and has instead sued 30 States and the District of Columbia for declining to produce this sensitive information. U.S. DOJ has admitted that it is seeking this data to transfer it to DHS to determine whether non-citizens have registered or voted," noted Friday's lawsuit.
Federal law does require states to maintain accurate voter rolls and allow people in most states to register to vote at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but does not authorize the Department of Justice to participate in that maintenance.
In January of this year, a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking access to Californian's private voter information calling the attempt, "unprecedented and illegal".
"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks an unprecedented amount of personal information related to California voters from California’s unredacted voting rolls. The requested information includes the names, social security numbers, home addresses, voting history and other sensitive information of nearly 23 million Californians," wrote Federal District Judge David O. Carter in January's decision to dismiss the federal government's request. "The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation. The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose. This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy."
Later the same month, over a quarter of the U.S. Senate signed a letter demanding an end to the Department of Justice's nationwide pursuit of private voter information.
"[T]he 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," argued President Trump in a Truth Social post on Aug. 18, 2025. "Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM. ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS. I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS. THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!!"
Despite multiple public statements railing against mail-in voting, President Trump has voted multiple times, even as recently as last month, by mail.
The Senator's late January letter came after the Attorney General explicitly linked complying with the demand for voter information in a January 24 letter to Minnesota Governor Walz as the third condition of a potential reduction of a targeted enforcement operation by federal law enforcement personnel in the state and after the shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in the state.
"The answer to Attorney General Bondi’s request is no. Her letter is an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law. This comes after repeated and failed attempts by the DOJ to pressure my office into providing the same data," wrote Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon in a statement the following day. "It is deeply disturbing that the U.S. Attorney General would make this unlawful request a part of an apparent ransom to pay for our state's peace and security."
Information gathered by the Trump Administration about Americans has already been shared with outside groups with an eye towards voter rolls without proper authorization.
"Just last week, DOJ admitted in court pleadings that rogue DOGE employees at the Social Security Administration (SSA) entered into a secret agreement to share SSA data unlawfully with an outside group for election-related purposes," noted the January letter signed by Senators. "The Department owes Congress and the public an explanation of what it plans to do with state voter roll data in its possession and what safeguards are in place to prevent further unauthorized misuse."
Congress has already passed legislation regarding federal elections standards, including mail-based voting procedures, most recently through the Help America Vote Act passed in 2002.
"Congress has established limited baseline requirements for federal elections, most often leaving the States considerable discretion in how to meet those requirements. Especially relevant here, Congress has set forth requirements for voter registration and mandated certain mail voting procedures," noted Friday's lawsuit. "In sum, UOCAVA [Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act], the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act], and HAVA [Help America Vote Act] provide strictly limited and specified
roles for the federal government in States' election administration. None of these statutes confer
any unilateral authority to the President relevant to the EO [Executive Order No. 14399]."
"Congress has established numerous criminal penalties for individuals who seek to interfere with free and fair elections, including by unlawfully attempting to register to vote or vote and providing false voting-related information," added Friday's lawsuit.
The White House created a website as part of its lobbying efforts for an election reform bill known as the SAVE America Act still making its way through Congress, a potential illegal use of taxpayer funds noted members of Congress in a letter to a federal watchdog in February of this year.
Friday's lawsuit noted that stalled elections reforms bill stating, "in the weeks leading up to signing this EO, the President has relentlessly urged Congress to enact the "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act" (the "SAVE America Act") S. 1383 (119th Cong.). The Act would change voter registration requirements
nationwide by requiring registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register and impose new voter identification rules to vote in federal elections. It also would require States to use DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements ("SAVE") system for purposes of identifying non-citizens on their voter rolls and require States to remove any voters flagged by SAVE as potential non-citizens. The President stated that he would withhold his signature on all legislation until Congress passes the Act, going so far as to advocate for termination of Senate filibuster rules to lower the vote threshold to enact the law without bipartisan support. This pressure has not yet yielded the President’s desired results, and at the signing of this EO, the President acknowledged that the bill did not have the support to pass."
The lawsuit filed Friday concluded by requesting the District Court hearing the lawsuit:
- Issue a judicial declaration that the provisions of Executive Order No. 14399 challenged in the suit are unconstitutional and void
- Enjoin all defendants, except the President, from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order
- Award the Plaintiff states all fees from pursuing the lawsuit
- Grant relief the Court deems appropriate
"What we are not going to do today is sit idly by while a bully steamrolls over our democracy. The people of California and our nation grasp the magnitude of the threat to our constitutional rights and together, we will not let them slip away," said California Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber. "We will fight tooth and nail to defend our right to vote and the democratic principles our country must uphold."
