Michigan Joins 23-State Coalition Challenging Trump's Mail Voting Executive Order as Unconstitutional

Michigan Attorney General Leads Legal Challenge to Federal Overreach on Election Administration

LANSING — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a coalition of more than 20 Democratic-led states in a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order that attempts to restrict mail-in voting and establish control over state election procedures, officials announced Friday.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3, argues the executive order violates the U.S. Constitution's grant of authority to states over election administration. Michigan joined Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin in the legal challenge.

What the Executive Order Demands

President Trump signed the executive order on Tuesday, March 31, directing the U.S. Postal Service to transmit mail-in ballots only to individuals enrolled on a state-specific Mail-in and Absentee Participation List compiled by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. The order calls for the creation of a nationwide list of eligible voters and seeks to bar the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to anyone not appearing on each state's approved voter list.

Under the executive order, approved mail-in ballot envelopes will feature special barcodes for tracking. The order also threatens states with the loss of federal funding and elected state officials with criminal prosecution if they do not comply.

Michigan's Position

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who leads the state's involvement in the coalition, stated that mail-in ballots are a safe and secure voting option that over 2.2 million Michiganders utilized in the 2024 election.

"Yet, while he reserves the right for himself, President Trump is working unilaterally to make it harder to vote from home for single moms, seniors, and the military serving overseas," Nessel said in a statement.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution grants states the power and responsibility to run elections, not the federal government.

"This Executive Order is illegal – it was designed to create confusion and chaos," Benson said. "If left unchecked, it will block millions of eligible American citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote."

Constitutional Arguments

The coalition of attorneys general contends that neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress gives President Trump authority to mandate sweeping changes to states' electoral systems or procedures. The lawsuit argues the executive order creates shadow voter eligibility lists within the federal government and uses threats of investigation and prosecution to coerce states into disenfranchising voters missing from those federal lists.

The attorneys general also argue the executive order would require states to upend their existing election administration procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education at a quick pace, potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election. The coalition contends such rapid changes will create confusion, chaos, and distrust in state election systems.

Michigan's Voting Laws

The controversy comes at a time when Michigan has established robust mail-in voting provisions through state law. In 2018, Michigan voters approved Proposal 3, amending the Michigan Constitution to allow all citizens to vote by mail or use secure ballot drop boxes in every election. The state constitution also created the option for every registered voter to opt in to the permanent mail ballot list.

More than 1.8 million active registered Michigan voters have signed up to automatically receive a mail-in ballot for every election, making Michigan one of the most mail-in ballot friendly states in the country.

Legal and Practical Concerns

Legal experts and political scientists have raised numerous concerns about the executive order. Elizabeth Bennion, Chancellor's Professor of Political Science at Indiana University South Bend, noted that the Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the authority to run elections.

"The Constitution gives states, not the federal government, the authority to run elections. Congress can step in, but the president is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution when we look at the Constitution's elections clause," Bennion said.

Bennion added that the order would require the Postal Service to verify change of addresses and flag voters whose mailing address doesn't match their voter registration address, using that data to help remove voters from the rolls.

"But this is controversial because the data is really not a reliable indicator of voter eligibility or ineligibility," Bennion explained. She noted that college students could have a college address and a permanent address, military families move often, and some family members split time between two homes.

The order does not direct states to notify voters if they have to update their registration to qualify to vote under the order, while also directing the USPS to stop delivering ballots to voters who are not on the federal verified list.

Nevada's Perspective

Nevada, which is leading the multi-state lawsuit alongside Michigan and other states, voiced similar concerns. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar stated that the president's action is unconstitutional.

"The notion that the federal government must get involved in local state processes is a direct attack on Nevadans' constitutional right to vote," Ford said.

Aguilar emphasized that changing rules during an election year creates significant problems for voters.

"All of a sudden, you make it to the championship or World Series, and all of a sudden rules are different — fans would go absolutely nuts, and it's the same in our election. Voters deserve consistency," Aguilar said.

Aguilar also noted that the executive order contains no funding, calling it an "unfunded mandate on local governments and state governments."

Trump's Defense

President Trump has defended the executive order, stating it is about voter integrity.

"I don't know how it could be challenged," Trump said. "The president said the order is about voter integrity. Remember, it's about voter integrity. We want to have honest voting in our country because if you don't have honest voting, you can't have a nation," Trump said.

Trump has repeatedly insisted that mail-in ballots and votes of immigrants in the country illegally have contributed to fraud in the 2020 presidential election. He lost that election to former President Joe Biden, and numerous audits, investigations, and courts have debunked his claims of widespread voter fraud.

What Comes Next

The lawsuit seeks to prevent the federal government from implementing or enforcing the executive order. Legal experts say it is unlikely the order will take effect before November's midterm elections, when the balance of power in the U.S. Congress is up for grabs.

Judges have already blocked a different Trump executive order on elections that threatened to withhold election funding from certain states that don't follow the president's orders.

The Brennan Center for Justice filed a separate lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the executive order. Andrew Garber, counsel for the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, stated the executive order is unconstitutional because it "purports to do a number of things that the Constitution doesn't give the president the power to do."

Governor Whitmer's Stance

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has also spoken out against the executive order, joining the legal challenge alongside the attorney general.

"Any attempt to federalize our elections or make it harder for Americans to cast their ballots is an attempt to take away Michiganders' constitutional right to vote," Whitmer said. "I won't let that happen."

The lawsuit represents a significant test of the constitutional boundaries of presidential power over elections and reinforces the principle that states, not the federal government, administer elections in the United States.