Order Would Wipe Out Voter Rolls, Gut Mail Voting, Centralize Executive Control of Elections

Atlanta – After the Washington Post yesterday revealed that pro-Trump activists were coordinating with the White House to declare a “national emergency” to expand presidential power over elections, Democracy Docket has published the full text of the draft executive order connected to the election interference plot.

Our first-look at the draft identifies sweeping provisions that would effectively wipe out existing voter registrations by forcing all voters to re-register ahead of the 2026 election, dramatically restrict mail voting, impose strict new federal documentation mandates on Americans, and centralize unprecedented control over election administration in the White House.

Taken together, the proposal amounts to a radical attempt to reshape the rules of elections ahead of the 2026 midterms – at a moment when President Trump’s approval ratings have declined significantly and Republican congressional candidates trail Democrats on the generic ballot in polls. Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo responded with the following statement:

“This draft executive order must be seen for what it is: a desperate move by a failing president. After the SAVE Act stalled in Congress and Trump’s push for red states to rig their voting maps ran into resistance, they appear to be scrambling for new ways to interfere with the 2026 election.

“Presidents cannot simply declare an emergency to seize control of elections that the Constitution assigns to the states – it’s blatantly unconstitutional. Americans have made clear they’re ready for change. If given a fair chance to cast their ballots, they will hold the Republican regime accountable, and that’s exactly what this order seems designed to prevent.”

KEY RED FLAGS IN THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER

1. Mandatory In‑person Re‑registration Before The 2026 Election:

• The order would effectively void existing voter rolls and force every voter to re‑register in person before the next federal election.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “Voters shall register in person or at a County satellite office anew for the 2026 United States election through their County pursuant to State processes for registration. Their registration shall include a National Unique Voter Number, full legal name, full date of birth, full address and proof of U.S. citizenship and any other State requirements necessary to establish eligibility.”
• Practical effect: Every eligible voter would have to travel to a designated office, present proof of citizenship, and obtain a new “National Unique Voter Number” just to remain eligible to vote in 2026. Rural, elderly, low‑income, and disabled voters without easy transportation would be at particular risk of being dropped from the rolls.
• By dictating how states must register voters and centralizing a federal voter‑numbering system, the order appears to run contrary to the authority that the Constitution assigns to state legislatures and Congress, not the president.
• This would function as a one‑time, nationwide purge of current voter registrations, creating an enormous administrative burden for states and putting millions of long‑registered voters at risk of showing up in 2026 and finding themselves off the rolls.

2. Notarization Requirement For All Absentee Ballots:

• The order replaces standard signature verification with a blanket requirement that every absentee ballot be notarized and arrive before Election Day.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “The absentee voter shall then mail or hand deliver their ballot in the notarized envelope to an election worker in a County election office during business hours prior to Election Day…All absentee ballots mailed or delivered in-person to an election office and received by close of business on the day prior to Election Day shall be processed. Ballots received after this deadline shall not be counted regardless of the postmark date.”
• Practical effect: Mail voters would have to find and pay a notary, appear in person with identification, execute their ballot materials under supervision, and ensure delivery before Election Day — with ballots arriving on Election Day discarded. The added financial cost and time burden would fall hardest on working families, rural voters, and seniors.
• Requiring paid notary services and discarding timely‑mailed ballots could be challenged as an undue burden on the right to vote and, in some cases, a de facto poll tax, especially where notary access is limited.
• For many voters – especially those in rural areas, with inflexible jobs, or limited mobility – this transforms mail voting from a convenient option into an expensive, multi‑step obstacle course, with otherwise valid ballots thrown out solely for lack of notarization or arrival one day too late.

3. Narrowing Who May Vote Absentee:

• The draft bans no‑excuse absentee voting and restricts mail ballots to a short list of documented justifications.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “When submitting an application to change the method of voting to absentee prior to an election, absentee voters shall provide a reason for absentee such as a confirmed medical condition preventing in-person voting due to age, disability, or illness, verified travel or legal reason, an out-of-town student or those on temporary work assignments.”
• Practical effect: States that currently offer no‑excuse absentee voting or mail ballots to all voters would have to shut down those systems and require every voter to prove they fit one of the listed categories before receiving a mail ballot.
• Imposing a federal ban on broad mail‑voting options adopted by state legislatures raises serious legal concerns, because it overrides state policy choices without an act of Congress.
• Millions of voters who have grown accustomed to voting by mail – including caregivers, hourly workers, and voters in states that mail ballots to all – could lose that option overnight, even if their state wants to preserve it.

4. Creation of a White House Office of Federal Election Security (OFES):

• The order sets up a new election office inside the Executive Office of the President with a mandate to oversee election security and direct intelligence assessments.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “To facilitate successful implementation of this order, I am establishing a temporary White House Office of Federal Election Security (OFES) with an inter-agency task force, to work with Congress and the States, the head of which will report directly to me…The Director of National Intelligence... shall revise their current foreign threat assessment...to include any person of foreign origin or potential domestic accomplice suspected of acting with the intent or purpose of interfering in a recent United States election.”
• Practical effect: OFES would centralize federal oversight of elections in the White House, giving political appointees a coordinating role over security operations and intelligence related to elections that are currently handled at arm’s length from partisan control.
• While presidents can organize White House offices, using a White House unit to influence state‑run election procedures and to steer “foreign threat assessments” that may justify emergency measures risks separation‑of‑powers and federalism challenges.
• This would, for the first time, put a de facto federal elections office directly under the president’s political team – aligning closely with reporting that allies have sought new emergency‑based tools to “unlock extraordinary presidential power” over elections.

5. Sweeping federal voter ID mandate (color photo, exact match, proof of citizenship):

• The EO would override state ID laws and require a highly specific federal standard for voter ID, including proof of citizenship and exact data matches with county records.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “Voter IDs shall contain a color photo containing the uncovered face and head of the individual and the full legal name for the voter, a full address, a full date of birth, and proof of U.S. Citizenship that exactly match the information on the County’s voter registration.”
• Practical effect: Voters could be turned away if their ID lacks a color photo, if they do not have citizenship documents on hand, or if there is any mismatch – like a missing middle initial, maiden name, or punctuation – between their ID and the registration database.
• Imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all standard by executive order directly preempts state voter‑ID laws and could be attacked as both an Elections Clause overreach and an equal‑protection problem if discrepancies lead to widespread disenfranchisement.
• Everyday name or address variations – especially common for married women and people who have moved – could become grounds for denying a ballot, even when the voter is unquestionably eligible and properly registered.

6. Re-Verification For Every Election:

• The EO would end the concept of durable voter registration and force voters to re‑verify their status before every future U.S. election.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “Voters shall verify their registration for each future United States election in accordance with any applicable State processes for registration.”
• Practical effect: Instead of registering once and remaining on the rolls, voters would need to complete a new verification step before each federal election cycle, creating recurring opportunities for confusion, missed deadlines, and bureaucratic error.
• Courts could view recurring, federally imposed verification demands – layered on top of state systems – as an unnecessary administrative barrier that disproportionately burdens certain groups, especially when imposed by executive order rather than statute.
• This would make staying registered a continuing hurdle course, increasing the odds that eligible voters only discover a problem when they arrive at the polls and are told they failed to “verify” in time.

7. New Documentation Hurdles For Overseas and Military Voters:

• The order imposes additional documentation and notarization requirements on uniformed service members, federal employees, and citizens living abroad who vote absentee.
• Direct quotes from the draft EO: “Uniformed Service members, their families and citizens residing outside the U. S. shall complete a Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) with updated confirmation of citizenship and state eligibility to request an absentee ballot to vote in a United States election…All completed absentee ballots sent by overseas voters must be notarized prior to sending.”
• Practical effect: Deployed service members and civilians overseas would have to meet new paperwork and notarization requirements – tasks that can be particularly difficult or costly in war zones or remote locations – just to cast an absentee ballot.
• Because Congress has already legislated protections for these voters through UOCAVA, an executive order that effectively makes their ballots harder to cast could invite challenges over issues that supersede or conflict with federal law.
• The voters who may face the steepest new barriers under this draft are Americans serving their country abroad, who could see their ballots delayed or rejected over technicalities unrelated to eligibility.

###

‍