Matt BlazeAug 31, 2025

Just for the record, Trump can’t do this. The Constitution is very clear that the “times, places, and manner“ of elections for federal office are determined by individual states (though can be altered by Congress).

The president simply has no role in US elections (except to sign into law or veto whatever election-related bills that congress might pass).

Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
And this is not some borderline edge case. It’s addressed directly in Article I of the Constitution. See https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript for this and other fun facts about how our government is organized.
Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
Now, Congress might well be able to legislate some or all of the things in Trump’s putative elections order. And the current Congress has been generally compliant with Trump’s legislative wishes, so it’s not out of the question that they might advance a bill with provisions along these lines, or that some state legislatures might do the same. But no executive order can require them to do so. It’s meaningless.
Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
Also, “Executive Orders” are not laws. They’re orders to the executive branch of the federal government. If you don’t work for the executive branch of the federal government (say, for example, you’re a state election official), presidential executive orders don’t apply to you.
Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
It's also worth noting that the measures he calls for - voter ID, no vote-by-mail, etc - are nothing new. He and others have long advocated for them, and some states already implement versions of them. So everything in this "order", which has all the legal force of a "suggestion", is also old news.
Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025

Finally, the federal government has no role in actually running US elections. States do that (usually via counties). So there is no one subject to this order in a position to follow it.

There are plenty of things to worry about with Trump. The legitimate power of the presidency is already vast, and he constantly pushes at its edges to abuse the office further still. But this “order” is just empty blather on his part, not something that he has any ability to actually implement or require.

Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
This thread brought to you by someone who researches and teaches election stuff at a still-somewhat-reputable school.
Show threadMagnus AhltorpSep 1, 2025
@mattblaze I (think I) understand why you make this analysis, but a strictly legalistic analysis, although important, isn’t sufficient at a stage where both law and facts are considered optional and where “pound the table” has largely replaced them.
Show threadMatt BlazeSep 1, 2025
@ahltorp The reason I posted my thread was to add context to a current event that touched upon an area of my expertise. I apologize if you found it lacking. Hopefully you can find a source of analysis and information elsewhere that better suits your needs.
Show threadMagnus AhltorpSep 1, 2025

@mattblaze I see a lot of people that say “this person can do this”, and “this person can’t do that”, referring to legality. You are far from the first, society and Mastodon are full of them.

As I wrote, I understand the reason for making this type of naive analysis, but it also perpetuates myths of how power works in society, and people are probably better off studying Foucault or Mbembe than the law at this stage. Sorry if this offends you.

Show threadJoe ❌👑
@ahltorp @mattblaze What you miss is that the states, who actually run elections, will simply ignore the executive order, based on arguments like those that Matt has presented. It is easier for Trump to defy the law when he can order people who work for him to defy it. But the people who administer elections don't work for him. So yes, law alone doesn't suffice. But it can certainly help.
Sep 1, 2025 at 11:24pmWeb
Show threadMagnus AhltorpNov 10
@not2b So now that someone bumped one of my replies in this thread, I revisited it, and it turns out that states having control over the elections isn’t sufficient, because Adelita Grijalva is still not sworn in.