State attorney general responds to Trump’s order forcing major changes to Washington’s elections
After years of President Donald Trump claiming the 2020 presidential election was rigged, he signed an executive order Tuesday that would reshape future voting and force major changes to Washington state’s elections.
But Washington Attorney General Nick Brown suggested the state would challenge Trump’s declaration.
Trump’s order would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and demands that all ballots be received by Election Day.
The order also warns that the government could withhold funding from states if they do not comply.
“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the White House’s statement reads.
Trump has claimed that the 2020 presidential election was rigged and has especially criticized mail voting systems like Washington’s.
“We have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots – that’s a whole big scam. You know, they found, I understand, eight ballots in a waste paper basket in some location. And they found – it was reported in one of the newspapers that they found a lot of ballots in a river. They throw them out if they have the name “Trump” on it, I guess. But they had ballots,” Trump said in a September 2020 interview.
Brown said the executive order is not valid.
“We are not going to take advice on election integrity from a guy who can’t stop lying about his 2020 election loss,” Brown said. “We have a secure and fair election system that respects voters’ rights, and we will use every tool we have to protect that.”
Additionally, Derek Young, interim executive director for Washington State Association of Counties, only coming across the executive order moments before, said that the association will continue to follow what the law says in Washington as they navigate this executive order.
“My organization represents the elected executives, commissioners and council members – so if we run into a situation where federal and state law run into conflict, you know, that’s, of course, something that our attorney general will need to sort out,” Young said.
“… We don’t really have a full reaction yet, but we’ll follow what the law says in Washington and orders of the attorney general and the secretary of state, who also has a role in our elections in Washington,” Young added.
Cornell Clayton, director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University, said this order doesn’t come as a shock and said he believes it will be challenged by states.
“What is interesting is that the administration is pursuing this kind of a strategy without legislation and my sense is they could probably get this kind of legislation through Congress if they wanted to,” Clayton said.
He believes this order is part of their theory of increasing executive branch power and power of the presidency.
“But it certainly makes it, from a legal standpoint, a much greater strain,” Clayton said.