Executive Order 14248

This Executive Order represents a significant attempt to reshape American election administration through executive action, raising substantial constitutional and democratic concerns. The order's most troubling aspects are: (1) its attempt to federalize election procedures that the Constitution reserves to states, (2) its use of funding coercion and enforcement threats to compel state compliance, and (3) its creation of new voter registration barriers through executive interpretation rather than legislation. While the order cites existing federal statutes, it interprets these statutes in contested ways and attempts to impose these interpretations through executive enforcement power. The order follows historical patterns of using 'election integrity' rhetoric to justify voting restrictions, and it establishes infrastructure for ongoing executive branch influence over state election administration. The revocation of voter access initiatives and the delegitimizing language about current election systems contribute to democratic erosion by undermining public trust in existing institutions. The involvement of the DOGE Administrator in voter roll review and the alignment of DOJ litigation positions with administration preferences suggest coordinated power consolidation around election administration.

• Documentary proof of citizenship requirements could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters who lack the specified documents, with disproportionate impact on minority, elderly, low-income, and young voters
• Federal funding coercion creates pressure for states to comply with federal election preferences regardless of state law or voter preferences
• The order establishes precedent for executive branch control over election administration, which could be expanded in future elections
• Selective enforcement priorities and information-sharing requirements could be used to target political opponents or discourage participation in certain jurisdictions

• Congress should assert its constitutional authority over federal election legislation and clarify whether documentary proof of citizenship requirements require statutory authorization
• States should prepare legal challenges based on the Elections Clause and the National Voter Registration Act's preemption of state documentary requirements
• Election officials and civil society organizations should document the impact of any implemented changes on voter registration and turnout
• The Election Assistance Commission should assert its independent status and resist directives that exceed its statutory authority
• Federal courts should be prepared to address the constitutional questions raised by executive attempts to federalize election administration