Biden's Executive Order 14019 oversteps federal authority, infringing on state rights and constitutional provisions governing elections.
In March 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14019, igniting significant legal and constitutional debates. The order was written by left-wing advocacy organizations including including demos.org. In this order, President Biden directed all federal agencies (including Homeland Security under impeached Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas) to register individuals to vote and promote mail-in voting. This order oversteps federal authority, infringing on state rights and constitutional provisions governing elections.
EO 14019 Violates the Election Clause and the Seventeenth Amendment
This get-out-the-vote scheme using federal employees and taxpayer resources to work with activist groups like Black Lives Matter and Rock the Vote, is unconstitutional and illegal. Executive Order 14019 is unconstitutional because President Biden issued this order without any congressional authorization. There is no statute authorizing federal agencies and federal employees to engage in a political get-out-the-vote scheme.
Executive Order 14019 is also unconstitutional because it violates the Election Clause under Article I, § 4 of the Constitution and violates the Seventeenth Amendment. Taken together, these provisions of the Constitution provide that the States, not the federal government, have the primary responsibility for conducting elections and determining the “time, place, and manner” of elections. This includes the requirements a person must establish to cast a ballot including requirements such as photo identification.
Concerns Over Homeland Security and Illegal Voters
Executive Order 14019 directs the federal agencies, including Homeland Security, to issue documents that allow the individual to cast a ballot or register to vote.
This is a particular concern because Homeland Security is allowing tens of millions of illegal migrants to enter the United States, and Homeland Security is processing these illegal migrants and issuing them documents that allow them to travel and can be used to register to vote and cast a ballot.
The Legal Challenge: Violating the Hatch Act
Finally, EO 14019 is also illegal because it directs federal employees to violate the Hatch Act that forbids federal employees from engaging in partisan election activities. By encouraging federal employees to involve themselves in political efforts to increase voter turnout, EO 14019 directly conflict with this longstanding federal statute.
Legal Action and the Constitutional Coalition’s Role
The Constitutional Coalition has researched the legal and constitutional issues and is working with various Secretaries of State and State Attorneys General to challenge the EO 14019 get-out-the-vote scheme. The Constitutional Coalition has demonstrated that the state Attorneys General and Secretaries of State have standing to challenge the EO 14019 get-out-the-vote scheme and obtain a national injunction against the federal agencies implementing this executive order.
In response to this analysis and research, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston, McDonald County Clerk Kimberly Bell, and St. Charles’s Director of Elections Kurt Bahr filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Shortly thereafter, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed an identical lawsuit.
These federal lawsuits seek an immediate national injunction preventing federal agencies and employees from engaging in the illegal and unconstitutional get-out-the-vote scheme.
Conclusion: Defending Election Integrity
As legal challenges to Executive Order 14019 unfold, the Constitutional Coalition continues its efforts to defend the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, and the principles of fair and transparent elections. While the Coalition does not take sides politically, its work underscores the importance of ensuring that election laws are upheld and that federal agencies do not overstep their bounds in what should be a state-controlled process. With multiple lawsuits now in progress, the outcome of these cases will likely shape the future role of the federal government in elections.
Comments