A federal magistrate issued a preliminary injunction on April 24 halting two significant aspects of a contentious executive directive imposed by the Trump administration that sought to modify federal voter registration processes.

“This verdict represents a substantial triumph for the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers,” stated Travis Crum, a law professor and specialist in voting rights. “The president cannot alter electoral laws through an executive edict.”

Crum elaborated on the verdict for the Election Law Blog.

The Trump administration was striving to swiftly implement modifications to electoral management, which included introducing a proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration document.

The decision, rendered by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, determined that the president likely overstepped his constitutional powers.

The court delivered its judgment in LULAC v. Executive Office of the President, a case consolidating three lawsuits — two by civil rights organizations and one from the Democratic Party — contesting five components of the executive directive. The court issued injunctions against two provisions while permitting the other three to remain in effect, at least for the time being.

“Judge Kollar-Kotelly also considered the possible implications of the Purcell principle, which advises against judicial alterations to election laws close to an election,” noted Crum. “She concluded that the principle was inapplicable, as the injunction preserves the legal status quo rather than disrupts it.”

Two further lawsuits contesting the executive directive, initiated by a coalition of Democrat-led states and the states of Washington and Oregon, are pending in federal courts located in Massachusetts and Washington state.

Peruse Crum’s comprehensive evaluation of the ruling on the Election Law Blog.

The article Federal court order a victory for rule of law originally appeared on The Source.