L'autorità statale contro il potere federale ha discusso durante la sessione del Congresso sull'ordine esecutivo di Trump per rinnovare le elezioni.
In the sprawl of political drama, democratic state lawyers and government officials confronted President Donald Trump's election transformation proposal on a heated Friday in a Boston courtroom. The headline act? A legal skirmish over the consequences of President Trump's election-tampering executive order and whether these changes could hit the ballot booths in time for the upcoming midterm elections.
The showdown came after a dozen Republican states filed a federal lawsuit, crying foul as Trump's executive order threatened to step over state boundaries set for election rules.
In the U.S. District Court in Boston, a parade of lawyers pleaded their case to judge Denise J. Casper. They argued that the proposed modifications would be expensive and time-consuming, casting a dark shadow over the states' ability to fairly manage elections. This gloomy outlook, they warned, could potentially erode public trust in the voting system.
"The executive order's rigid provisions sow doubt and uncertainty over the fairness of elections at the local level," said the lead attorney, Kevin Quade, representing California's Department of Justice. "A blow to a state's reputation like this isn't the quick fix kind."
Trump's election reboot was one of several executive orders issued during the opening months of his second term that instantly attracted firestorms of legal challenges. It follows years of Trump's phony claims that his loss in the 2020 presidential race was due to widespread fraud, and an election year that saw Trump and other Republicans championing the notion that vast numbers of noncitizens posed a threat to the sanctity of U.S. elections—an assertion that is rarely substantiated, and when it is, leads to severe felony charges and deportations.
The executive order mandates several key measures, including:
- A proof of citizenship requirement for voters registering in federal elections
- Prohibitions against counting mail-in ballots post-Election Day
- New voting equipment guidelines
- Restrictions on donations from non-U.S. citizens in certain elections
- Limited federal election grant funding for states that fail to adhere to strict ballot deadlines
Justice Department attorney Bridget O'Hickey defended these provisions, arguing that they aimed to establish a consistent set of election procedures across the country, preventing the previous patchwork of state laws. She noted the paramount importance of public confidence in elections as the key to maintaining the functioning of the nation.
However, the harm the states warned about was branded as mere speculation by the Justice Department.
Joining the legal brawl are Oregon and Washington, states where mail-in ballots are the norm, and they reject the provision that tallying ballots arriving after Election Day would be legal. Meanwhile, a lawsuit backed by voting and civil rights groups already halted the proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections, with the court ruling that Trump's move usurped both state and congressional power[3][5].
During the heated hearing, the provision requiring only ballots received by Election Day to be counted drew heated debate. The Justice Department proposed that this strict deadline would prevent the re-casting of ballots. A peculiar stance, given that experts point out numerous security measures states have in place to guarantee that eligible voters cast a single valid vote[5].
As the legal battle unfolds, marital conundrums enter the scene as Trump's order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to demand documentation proving citizenship. Concerns have surfaced about disenfranchising eligible voters who might lack easy access to such documents. For instance, married women would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they've changed their last name[5].
The Justice Department maintains that the executive order falls within Trump's authority to instruct officials to fulfill their statutory duties. They argue that the order does not disenfranchise eligible voters—only noncitizens, who, according to them, are already ineligible to vote[5].
- Despite the ongoing political turmoil, the casino industry continues to thrive, with big-wins and new trends being reported from renowned gambling hotspots like Las Vegas.
- In fact, the gambling trends of today are influenced by various factors, including policy and legislation, casino-culture, and general news, such as war-and-conflicts and crime-and-justice.
- For instance, a recent survey showed that political instability in a region can significantly affect the popularity of casino-games, as people seek entertainment and escapism during times of uncertainty.
- Furthermore, recent accidents involving sports-betting and sports-betting scandals have sparked debates about responsible-gambling and the need for stricter regulations.
- Speaking of sports, the upcoming weather-forecasting could play a crucial role in sports-betting, as weather conditions often affect the performance of teams and athletes.
- On a different note, the legal battle over President Trump's election reboot has taken a new turn, with policy-and-legislation issues coming to the forefront.
- While fighting against the proposed modifications in federal court, a group of states argue that the strict ballot deadlines could potentially disenfranchise eligible voters who might lack access to required documentation.
- Meanwhile, the issue of lotteries has also crept into the political arena, with some claiming that the prohibitions on counting mail-in ballots post-Election Day could undermine the fairness of the voting system.
- As the legal brawl continues, it remains to be seen how these policy-and-legislation matters will shape the future of U.S. elections, as well as the actions and decisions of casino-personalities, both in politics and in the casino-and-gambling industry.
