• A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked portions of Trump's executive order on voting.
• Key provisions include mandates for proof of citizenship and counting late mail-in ballots.
• This ruling marks a significant setback for Trump's administration and its electoral policies.
• 19 Democratic-led states challenged the executive order, arguing it infringed on state powers.
• The judge emphasized that the Constitution does not grant the President authority over elections.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked significant parts of President Trump's executive order that sought to overhaul U.S. election procedures. U.S. District Judge Denise Casper issued a preliminary injunction against five sections of the executive order, including the controversial requirement for proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic-led states that argue the order is unconstitutional and infringes on states' rights to regulate their own voting processes, according to CBS News and HuffPost.

Judge Casper's ruling specifically blocks the enforcement of new rules that demanded documentary proof of citizenship in federal voter registration forms, asserting that such requirements are not authorized by Congress. She stated that "the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," emphasizing that election regulations fall under state authority. This aligns with previous rulings which highlighted the illegal nature of such executive orders, according to Los Angeles Times and South China Morning Post.

The judge also determined that states can continue to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive later, countering Trump's claims that such procedures are prone to fraud. The ruling has been described by supporters, such as California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as a "win for democracy," upholding the states’ right to manage their electoral processes effectively. According to Channel News Asia and The Hill, the implications of this ruling could lead to extended legal battles over voting rights in the approaching election cycle.

This is not the first legal setback for the Trump administration regarding this executive order; another federal judge in Washington, D.C., had previously issued a ruling that blocked parts of the directive that similarly sought to impose new voting regulations. Legal experts continue to question the administration's authority over such expansive changes to election law, suggesting that Trump's position is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's delineation of powers, as indicated by India Times and NPR.