US judge rejects immediate block on Trump's mail-in voting executive order

A United States judge in Washington, D.C. refused to immediately halt a presidential executive order tightening rules on mail-in voting. The request came from Democrats and civil rights groups who argued the order would likely be unconstitutional because election rules are set by states and Congress rather than the president. The judge agreed the case was premature since the order had not yet been enforced and the administration was still developing the rules and procedures required to implement it. The judge said any potential harms were too speculative for immediate judicial intervention. The judge noted that future actions by federal agencies could still be challenged, and plaintiffs could renew motions if later enforcement steps directly affect them.

"A United States judge has declined to immediately block President Donald Trump's executive order tightening rules on mail-in voting. But the judge Carl Nichols in the District of Columbia has left open the possibility for Democrats to challenge the measure again as the administration moves to implement it. Nichols, a Trump appointee, ruled on Thursday against a request by Democrats and civil rights groups seeking to halt the executive order."

"The challengers argued the measure would likely be unconstitutional because the authority to set election rules rests with states and Congress, not the president. In his ruling, Nichols, however, agreed with the Trump administration's argument that the case was premature because the order has not yet been enforced. He added that the administration is still developing the rules and procedures needed to enforce the measure, making any potential harms too speculative for immediate court intervention."

"The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws, Nichols wrote. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted."

Read at www.aljazeera.com