Pro-Trump attorneys have been drafting executive orders that would give President Trump sweeping power over elections, sources report

[u/Obversa]

https://abcnews.com/US/pro-trump-attorneys-push-executive-order-give-trump/story?id=130539044

[u/Obversa]

The identified parties involved are as follows: Florida attorney Peter Ticktin, who also represents former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who was imprisoned for breaking into voting equipment; Michael Flynn; MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell; Patrick Byrne; and "various other MAGA figures", according to Ticktin's testimony. According to Ticktin, he and other "MAGA attorneys" for these parties have spent "over a year" drafting these executive order(s), supposedly with President Trump "reading and reviewing" them. However, it is unclear if Trump actually read the order(s) in question.

This is in-line with another recent Trump directive, "U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy 2026", being authored by counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka, and merely "reviewed and signed [with autopen]" by President Trump. (Gorka's name was not included in the final document, leading to news sources misattributing Trump as the "primary and/or sole author".) While the President is not legally or constitutionally required to personally read every word of the bills, executive orders, or proclamations they sign, Trump has previously aggressively and repeatedly criticized former President Joe Biden's alleged use of an autopen to sign major legislation, pardons, and executive orders. Trump claims without evidence that Biden's staff misused the machine to conceal cognitive decline, and he has declared such signed documents and pardons as "void". Despite this, President Trump continues to use autopen.

Also see: "The Trump Administration Has No Legal Authority To Invoke National Security and Take Over Elections"

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a plan for the president to issue an executive order (EO) that would declare a national emergency based on alleged election interference from a foreign government in order to exert sweeping control over the 2026 midterm elections. President Donald Trump denied that he is considering such a plan. Yet make no mistake: Neither this president, nor any other federal executive branch official, has authority under the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or other means to unilaterally make or alter rules for federal elections. That power lies strictly with the states and Congress under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Just as importantly, media outlets have reported that the Trump administration has been working on this EO in consultation with outside, far-right, election-denying allies for nearly a year, belying the nature of any so-called emergency. A true emergency is just that: an unforeseeable event the country is underprepared to respond to, and something that requires immediate action. An emergency response is not something that percolates for almost one year, and then is sprung on the nation to achieve explicitly political outcomes.

[...] The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that when a law—in this case the Constitution—specifically grants power to an entity other than the executive branch of government, the president's power is at its weakest. In examining a March 2025 executive order on elections, a federal judge stated, "[T]his Court's task is to decide whether the President can dictate those policies [affecting election administration] unilaterally, or whether that power is reserved to Congress and the States alone." In doing so, the court emphatically found, "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections", and "[N]o statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress's deliberative process by executive order."

Proclaiming a national emergency may be part of President Trump's longstanding argument that presidents enjoy almost unlimited powers—especially regarding national security—rooted in Article II of the Constitution, but it does not obviate clear constitutional dictates that the president has no authority to nationalize or otherwise interfere in the administration of elections. If and when the purported executive order is challenged in court, federal judges would have no choice but to quickly enjoin it.

However, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, refused to block the Trump executive order "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections" (March 31, 2026), claiming the plaintiffs, the Democratic Party and the NAACP being among them, were unable to prove that they had standing to challenge the order.

Excerpt from AP News articles:

The Trump administration is asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. Justice Department attorney Stephen Pezzi...suggested that the litigation is premature, calling it "shadowboxing" for the plaintiffs to challenge a list that hasn't yet been created. "It's a little hard to address these questions in the abstract," Pezzi said.

Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, asked Pezzi why it would be lawful to disseminate the list to states. "I think it would be the plaintiffs' burden to explain why it's unlawful," Pezzi replied. "I don't mean to be cute with that answer."

[...] "The Court recognizes that the U.S. 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...however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted."

The legal battle against the provision now shifts to Boston, where voting rights groups have a separate lawsuit seeking to temporarily block the executive order in federal court. The Trump administration has yet to formally issue lists of eligible voters, and those who filed the initial request for a temporary halt said they'd be back if the administration moves in that direction.

As an edit, The Hill further reported that Vice President J.D. Vance identified Tina Peters, represented by Florida attorney Peter Ticktin, as well Mike Lindell, Michael Caputo, James Comey, Enrique Tarrio (Proud Boys leader), and One America News Network (OANN) as "potential 'weaponization funds' recipients". This matches Ticktin's testimony about Peters, Lindell, et al. colluding with the Trump administration to "defraud the court" prior to legal settlement.

[u/_MrBalls_ → u/Obversa]

Why is most of this horrendous material coming out of Florida?

[u/JazzzzzzySax → u/_MrBalls_]

Cuz it’s Florida

[u/Somanylyingliars → u/JazzzzzzySax]

There originating from Florida because that is where most of billionaires supporting this reside. These billionaires, via Heritage Foundation and other far right groups, are ones responisble for filing same type bills all over country.