Trump Wins Big With Mail-In Voting EO Ruling – Or Does He?

A federal judge on Thursday, May 28, declined to block President Donald Trump’s executive order regarding mail-in ballots. But there’s a catch: He didn’t rule on the merits of the case so much as the timing. The Democrats suing were denied because the Trump administration had yet to actually act on the order. Is this the big win for the president on election security that it might seem at first glance – or just a warning to Democratic Party officials not to jump the gun?

No Love for the Left’s Lawsuit … Yet

President Trump signed an executive order on March 31, ordering his administration to form a list of confirmed US citizens eligible to vote in each state and to restrict the US Postal Service to delivering mail-in ballots only to those on the approved list. Democrats – including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – argued in federal court that the order could disenfranchise millions of voters. US District Judge Carl Nichols, however, shut them down.

“Given that the Executive Order does not command Plaintiffs to do anything, and that no agency has yet acted pursuant to the Order in any way that could harm Plaintiffs, they have not suffered any harm at present,” explained Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump during his first term in the White House.

Both sides of the aisle seemed to take this as a significant win for the Trump administration – but was it? “Today’s ruling is a decisive victory for the rule of law,” White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. Schumer complained: “Trump’s strategy is simple: if he can’t win voters, he’ll silence them – and now a MAGA judge is enabling him.”

But Judge Nichols didn’t rule on the merits of the case – he didn’t address that part at all, in fact. Rather, he simply pointed out that Democrats were suing before the damages they imagined could take place – all while leaving the door open for them to file suit again should that change.

That’s far less a “decisive victory” for Trump and more an extension on the issue – or perhaps it could be called “a win for now.”

Mail-In Ballots and the ‘Safe and Secure’ Election

The president – and many of his supporters – claim they were robbed in 2020. They believe the massive jump in mail-in voting brought with it rampant fraud and think that's what cost him the election: not that more actual people voted for Joe Biden, but that enough falsified ballots were fortuitously found to affect the outcome.

Democrats, of course, argue that absentee voting is safe and secure, and that election fraud rarely, if ever, actually happens. Of course, a recent case in Illinois proves the point. Sylvia Sims Bolton, an alderperson representing Waukegan’s 1st Ward, was charged recently with a felony after allegedly submitting a mail-in ballot for her dead mother in the 2026 primaries. Apparently, she was so excited to support her cause that she voted twice. Well, so much for that not being a thing that really happens.

And she isn’t alone. According to a study from The Heritage Foundation, “sampling” revealed “1,176 proven instances of voter fraud,” and they weren’t just in blue states, either. The big categories were “duplicate voting,” “ineligible voting,” “false registrations,” and “fraudulent use of absentee ballots.” But wait, isn’t that precisely what the president and his supporters said happened? “This is not an exhaustive list but simply a sampling that demonstrates the many different ways in which fraud is committed,” the study explained.

The Trump Card

But back to the president’s executive order.

If implemented, Trump’s directive would result in a federal database of US citizens by state who are eligible to vote. Does that mean those who are registered to vote – in which case it’s essentially a matter of verifying voter rolls – or a full list of everyone who meets the requirements to register? Would that be terribly intrusive? Federal law already requires people to fill out the Census every decade. Refusing to do so is a federal offense and can result in up to a $5,000 fine, though the Census Bureau usually opts to send someone out in person to conduct an interview instead. If that doesn’t work, they might even try to gather information on the household in question from neighbors and building managers – effectively spying on citizens who don’t want to turn over their personal information.

Then there are taxes: Fail to file and see how fast the federal (and state) government shows up to collect. They want your information and your money – and they’ll take it by any means necessary, even if that means putting a lien on your real property and selling it at auction or by garnishing your wages. Yes, not paying taxes can eventually render you homeless.

The examples of how the government – at any level – can force the people to line up neatly on some list or other. So how is this really any different?

The difficulty in implementation, however, is the all-important question: How? What method will the federal government use to compile such a list? And how will this actually cause harm to Democrats so they can sue? Well, we may know soon enough – or, at least, we may soon have some random judge’s opinion on the matter. A similar set of lawsuits has been filed in Boston, and Obama-appointee Judge Indira Talwani is set to hear arguments on June 2.