Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Mail-in Voting Executive Order

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a coalition of 24 other attorneys general and governors in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over an executive order signed on March 31 that attempts to establish a national list of eligible voters and restrict mail-in ballot distribution.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday, April 3, comes as tensions over election oversight continue to escalate across the country as the 2026 elections approach. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson had earlier threatened legal action against the order, calling it "illegal on its face" and arguing that states—not the president—have constitutional authority to run elections.

The Executive Order

On March 31, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to establish a national list of eligible voters and limit the distribution of mail-in ballots to voters on that list via the United States Postal Service. The order requires states to crosscheck voter data with federal records and creates a new verification system for mail-in ballots.

According to the White House, the order is meant to prevent non-citizens from voting and enhance election integrity. The order states that ensuring citizenship verification is the "constitutional obligation" of the federal government and that "additional measures are necessary" to secure the voting process.

Each ballot under the new system would be tied to a barcode corresponding to an eligible voter on the national list. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to only send mail ballots to voters on these federal lists.

Michigan's Legal Challenge

Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a coalition of attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.

"The move drew legal scrutiny from Trump's opponents, as the Constitution gives the States the authority to run elections," Nessel stated.

In a press release, Nessel argued that neither the Constitution nor Congress give the President the authority to make changes to states' electoral systems. "Mail-in ballots are a safe and secure voting option that over 2.2 million Michiganders availed themselves to in the 2024 election, many who presumably used that choice to vote for this very President," she said.

Nessel emphasized that the order would withhold federal funds from states that don't comply, which the coalition argues would require states to violate their preexisting voter procedures. "Michigan voters overwhelmingly voted to expand absentee voting in 2018, and I will protect that choice against an administration that is hellbent on taking it away," Nessel said.

Benson's Earlier Statement

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson had reacted to the move earlier in the week, saying: "This executive order is illegal on its face. States run elections, not the president... The president couldn't convince Congress to pass his disastrous voter suppression bill, so he's resorted to this."

Benson is referring to the SAVE America Act, also known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which aims to ensure only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. Although noncitizen voting is already illegal under federal law, the SAVE Act would add new documentation requirements for voters.

Constitutional Arguments

The coalition's lawsuit centers on the argument that the Constitution gives states the authority to run elections, not the federal government. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are able to set the "Times, Place, and Manner" of federal elections, while Congress is able to enact changes.

Nessel argued that the President cannot direct or control state voting laws, and that no executive order can give the president authority over state election administration. "This power is not the president's to give," Nessel said, echoing arguments made by other attorneys general in the coalition.

The lawsuit comes after the administration's SAVE America Act failed to pass the U.S. Senate, prompting Trump to issue this executive order instead.

Election Integrity Claims

Trump has repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting is prone to fraud, despite lacking evidence. According to research from the Brookings Institute in November 2025, mail-in voting fraud accounted for only 0.000043% of all mail ballots cast—approximately 4 out of every 10 million ballots.

Nessel noted that Trump previously told the Associated Press that the order would reduce "cheating" with mail-in ballots, but the administration has not provided evidence to support these claims.

Previous Legal Actions

Nessel signaled that Michigan is prepared to challenge this new order in court, stating: "I remain undeterred in my resolve to protect the people of Michigan from this administration's unlawful and pernicious actions. We have defeated these unlawful election orders in the courts before, and I will not hesitate to do so again."

Michigan has previously challenged similar executive orders from the Trump administration regarding election oversight. Nessel's statement suggests she believes Michigan has a strong legal case and is confident in the outcome.

Broader Political Context

The Michigan debate has extended to Washington, where Michigan Republicans have also called out Benson, sending her a letter urging her to address what they called ongoing "election integrity concerns." The letter stated that "a U.S. citizen's right to vote in elections is a cornerstone of our Republic and one which all elected officials should vigorously defend."

State Senate Republican Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, has previously said additional scrutiny is needed, accusing Benson of failing to ensure transparency and election security.

Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer has also pushed back on Trump's ongoing push to federalize elections, calling the idea unconstitutional. "Let me be very clear: elections will continue to be run at the state level in Michigan," Whitmer said at the time. "Any attempt by the federal government to take over Michigan elections should be seen for what it is—an attempt to take away your constitutional right to vote."

What Comes Next

The lawsuit will likely face scrutiny in federal courts, which will have to determine whether the President has the authority to issue such an executive order regarding election administration. The coalition's argument that the Constitution leaves election administration to states and Congress is supported by the text of the U.S. Constitution.

If successful, Michigan and the other states in the coalition could see the executive order invalidated, returning election administration authority to state officials. The order also threatened to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states, which could have significant financial implications for state budgets.

Nessel's statement suggests that Michigan is prepared for a prolonged legal battle if necessary. "I will not hesitate to do so again," she said, indicating that Michigan may pursue additional legal challenges if this order is upheld or if new orders are issued.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have implications for election administration across the country, given the broad coalition of states involved. Michigan's willingness to join such a coalition demonstrates the state's commitment to protecting its election system and the voting choices of Michigan residents.