LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — For the second time in as many days, a federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump seeking to impose new rules on elections nationwide.
On Thursday, Judge Indira Talwani blocked a March executive order that called for the creation of lists of eligible voters in each state, prohibited the post office from delivering mail ballots to people not on the lists and ordered the Justice Department to investigate state and local officials who didn't comply.
WATCH | Second Trump elections order blocked
The ruling followed a Wednesday decision by a different federal judge that held a March 2025 order calling for the verification of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote was also unconstitutional.
(The U.S. Constitution specifies that states make elections laws, with Congress allowed to change rules; the president has no role in that process.)
And it comes as an increasingly frustrated Trump is ramping up efforts to get the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, which would require documented proof of citizenship before a person could cast a ballot.
On Wednesday, Trump upbraided senators during a weekly lunch for failing to pass the act, which already passed the House in April. (Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., says there are neither the votes to pass the SAVE Act nor to do away with the 60-vote filibuster threshold, which might make passage easier.)
And Trump canceled a scheduled signing of a bipartisan housing bill on Wednesday, declaring he won't sign the legislation until the SAVE Act passes the Senate.
No power in elections
"The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Talwani wrote in her 37-page ruling.
The judge turned away arguments from the federal government — joined by 12 states — that it was too early to challenge the order, since its provisions hadn't been put into place.
"Plaintiff States [including Nevada] are actively working to conduct primary, special, and general elections," the ruling reads. "The [executive order] has ordered administrative agencies to take action in the coming months that has already required Plaintiff States to respond given the practical nature of an election cycle."
In addition, the judge ruled the requirement to produce voter lists was problematic.
"It is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State," Talwani wrote. "More than that, while the [order] provides that the Confirmed Citizen Lists 'shall be derived from' certain federal records... those records do not necessarily track name changes (such as when a woman changes her name at marriage) or residence changes when citizens move from State to State. Accordingly, these Confirmed Citizen Lists will necessarily be incomplete."
The ruling also held that the postal service has no authorization to write new regulations about mail-in ballots, as the order requires.
A request for comment sent to the White House was not returned.
'Mind blowing' rule
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar praised the ruling as reinforcing the idea that states set election rules.
"We know we have some competitive races in November, but again, we will be out there as elections officials, talking to voters and making sure they understand our elections are going to work as the Nevada Legislature and the Nevada governor have determined we will run our elections, and not the federal government," he said.
Aguilar said elections workers in the state were concerned about the provision that could have led to investigations for failing to comply with the new rule.
"We have a dedicated group of individuals working at the county and city levels who truly care about our elections. They live in our neighborhoods, they are our friends," Aguilar said. "And the fact that they would have to accept greater risk for doing the job we need them to do is just mind blowing."
Added Aguilar: "Yes, this was a concern of theirs Yes, they did mention it, but they didn't harp on it. They knew there was a chance, that we were standing up there fighting back, that we are trying to protect them.
"We had their back, and the fact that the courts delivered for us just shows that we're going to continue to stand up for those local elections officials."
One big case left to go
Now elections officials nationwide are looking to the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a Mississippi case challenging state rules that allow ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted, provided they were postmarked by that date.
Nevada has a similar law.
Opponents contend the Constitution specifies a single "Election Day" for the entire nation, and allowing ballots to be counted that come in after that date violates that standard.
The ruling is expected next week.
If the court rules for the Republicans, ballots would have to come in earlier to be counted. Aguilar said he encourages voters to turn in their mail ballot as early as possible, but to bring them to any election center and drop them in a ballot box if they're voting in the last few days of the election.
Do you have a question about Nevada politics? Ask Steve at Steve.Sebelius@ktnv.com, or by clicking on the banner below.
