President Trump’s March 25, 2025 executive order on elections seeks to impose an excessive, and likely unconstitutional, mandate on American citizens seeking to register to vote. It also assigns a prominent role in the management of state election rolls to the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency. Though many of the order’s provisions may be struck down, its impact is still significant. The executive order is already creating confusion among election officials – and it is a clear directive to the states about how the President wants them to change their laws. If states take President Trump’s cue, it will create administrative chaos and have astounding impacts on the ability of American citizens to register to vote.
All Voters Could Face New Bureaucratic Hurdles to Register and Vote
Although rigorous checks and balances already ensure only American citizens register and vote, the order directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to change the National Mail Voter Registration Form, commonly referred to as the “federal voter registration form,” to require registrants to provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). The order defines DPOC as a U.S. passport, a state-issued REAL ID or military ID that explicitly states the holder is a U.S. citizen, or a federal or state-issued ID accompanied by other proof of citizenship (not defined by the order).
Many voters will not have ready access to the limited types of acceptable documents and could be denied their right to vote despite being eligible citizens. State-issued REAL IDs and military IDs generally do not specify that the holder is a U.S. citizen. In fact, nearly 1 in 8 eligible voters were denied registration when Kansas attempted to implement a similar DPOC requirement in 2013 because they couldn’t access the necessary documents. The law was then struck down by a federal court as unconstitutional.
And unlike the laws in Kansas and Arizona and similar proposals like the SAVE Act currently pending in Congress, the order does not list a birth certificate as an acceptable document.
Fewer than half of all Americans have a passport. While the order limits this change to the EAC’s national registration form, state lawmakers will seek to apply the DPOC requirements to their own registration forms that apply to all elections in the state. The order will likely turbocharge efforts in states where proof of citizenship legislation has already been introduced as the President’s allies race to curry favor.
Proof of Citizenship in the States
DPOC is an extreme policy that has yet to be implemented well. Prior to last summer, Arizona was the only state to impose a DPOC requirement on voter registration, and it suffered from many implementation problems.
But in the past nine months, three states – New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Wyoming – all enacted new DPOC requirements. And as of April 1 of this year, 23 states have introduced legislation attempting to newly impose this restriction on their voters – up from 14 states in 2024 and 8 states in 2023.
Within a week of the publication of the executive order, lawmakers in Texas and Florida advanced DPOC legislation designed to impose new burdens on over 32 million registered voters in those two states.
DOGE and the Department of Justice Could Play a Role in States’ List Maintenance
The order also seeks to have the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), review each state’s voter registration list and to evaluate each state’s compliance with federal requirements for list maintenance. Neither of these departments have prior experience with voter list administration, and observers will have concerns about possible administrative errors that restrict eligible voters. Federal laws place responsibility for maintaining statewide voter lists on state election officials rather than federal officials.
Additionally, the order calls for extensive cooperation between the Department of Justice and state law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute violations of state and federal election laws. States that choose to not cooperate with federal law enforcement could face a loss of federal funds.
Voter Registration List Challenges in States
Battleground states like Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada endured mass challenges of tens of thousands of registered voters and litigation against election officials leading into the 2024 election as Trump allies sought to prevent eligible citizens from casting ballots. Nearly all of these challenges failed, but the insertion of DOGE and DHS into the state list maintenance process reflects an explicit goal of Project 2025 and could be the next phase of this assault on voting rights.
A state supreme court race in North Carolina remains undecided months after the November 2024 election due to a candidate’s post-election efforts to challenge the registrations of over 65,000 voters.
The Justice Department’s involvement in state investigations would continue recent momentum in the states to increase the frequency of prosecutions and severity of punishment for election-related offenses. This year alone, 23 states introduced over 120 bills targeting voters and the election workers and other individuals who assist them.
Florida stands as an extreme example of this trend with the recent creation of the Office of Election Crimes & Security (OECS). This election-specific law enforcement unit has been controversial since its inception, with few arrests and a number of cases being thrown out of court.
Ballots Postmarked by Election Day May No Longer be Valid
Trump’s order directs federal officials to interpret federal statutes as setting a single Election Day. The order directs the EAC to condition any state funding on the state enforcing a rule that no mail or absentee ballot received after Election Day can be tabulated for federal elections. The 17 states that currently accept ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, but received after Election Day, may feel pressure to change these laws to reflect an Election Day receipt deadline.
Impact on State Election Timelines
North Carolina eliminated its postmark deadline prior to the 2024 election, and Kansas legislators recently overrode the governor’s veto on a bill eliminating that state’s postmark deadline for ballot return. Utah also eliminated its postmark deadline as part of this year’s election reform package that also eliminated its popular universal vote-by-mail process.
The order’s funding conditions could lead states that currently have postmark deadlines like California, Texas, New York, and Illinois to change their laws to require all ballots to be returned by Election Day.
22 states, including Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Nevada, provide voters an opportunity to correct (“cure”) minor errors on their ballot verification documents after Election Day. State changes to ballot return deadlines could impact the availability of this option for voters.
States and Counties Could Be Forced to Scrap Current Voting Equipment
Under the order’s terms, any voting equipment that does not meet particular requirements, including creating a voter-verifiable paper record, would not be certified for use in federal elections. States like Georgia, and some counties in other states, may need to replace nearly all of their current voting machines. Additionally, the order’s requirement for the EAC to rescind all certifications under prior standards could prevent the continued use of current equipment in the 11 states in which state law mandates the use of EAC-certified equipment.
Impact on State Voting Equipment
Georgia’s statewide voting machine replacement process carries a heavy price tag. State officials estimate that it could cost anywhere from $25 million to $300 million. A federal court recently dismissed a suit filed by self-appointed “election integrity” activists alleging vulnerabilities with Georgia’ voting systems after nearly seven years of litigation.
North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Georgia are among the states that require voting equipment to be EAC certified. One former Pennsylvania state election official predicted that as much as 90% of all existing voting equipment may need to be replaced depending on how the re-certification process unfolds.
Military and Overseas Voters Could Face Additional Hurdles
The order requires the Department of Defense to amend the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), which military and overseas voters may use to register to vote and apply for their home state’s absentee ballot, to require documentary proof of citizenship and proof of eligibility to vote in the state to which they are applying. It is unclear whether this new information will be required when military and overseas voters use the FPCA to register, to apply for ballots, or both. Servicemembers posted overseas might now be required to provide difficult to access documentation and meet unclear requirements concerning proof of eligibility to be able to vote in their home states while they’re serving their country.
Challenges to Military and Overseas Voters in the States
Military and overseas voting access faced explicit challenges in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan ahead of the 2024 election. The executive order’s explicit restrictions on those voters may spur additional state efforts to erect barriers to their access to the ballot.
While the executive order names military IDs as a form of documentary proof of citizenship, it conditions their acceptability on an explicit indication on the ID that the holder is a U.S. citizen. Few, if any, current forms of military ID include such an indication. As a result, servicemembers wishing to use their military IDs to satisfy DPOC requirements will need to submit additional documentation as well.