A United States federal judge has permanently blocked a directive from the administration of former President Donald Trump that would have required voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections. The ruling, delivered on Friday, 31 October 2025, in Washington D.C., affirms that the authority to regulate federal elections rests with the U.S. Congress and the states, not the President.

In her decision, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly stated the directive was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, a foundational principle of the U.S. government. "Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes," Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion. She further noted that the Constitution assigns "no direct role to the President" in setting voter qualifications or regulating federal election procedures.

The ruling is a significant outcome in a legal battle initiated by a coalition of civil rights groups and Democratic Party committees. Plaintiffs, including the Democratic National Committee, the League of Women Voters, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, challenged a sweeping executive order on elections issued by President Trump on 25 March 2025. They argued that the President had overstepped his executive authority and that the proof-of-citizenship requirement would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly naturalized citizens, minorities, and low-income individuals who may not have easy access to documents like passports or birth certificates.

The directive had instructed the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent, bipartisan agency, to add the documentary proof requirement to the national mail voter registration form. The EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to assist in election administration and maintains the federal voter form in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order permanently bars the EAC from implementing this change.

Implications for Democratic Governance

While this ruling directly addresses the separation of powers within the U.S. constitutional framework, it carries broader significance for democratic principles globally, including in Kenya. The judgment underscores the critical role of an independent judiciary in checking executive overreach, a principle central to Kenya's own 2010 Constitution, which delineates the powers of the Executive, Parliament, and the Judiciary.

The debate in the U.S. mirrors Kenya's long-standing discussions on voter identification and electoral integrity. Under Kenya's Elections Act, citizens must present a national identity card or a valid passport to register to vote. However, activists and organizations like the Katiba Institute have highlighted that barriers to obtaining these documents can disenfranchise eligible citizens, particularly in marginalized communities. The U.S. court's decision touches on a similar tension: the balance between measures aimed at preventing alleged fraud and ensuring that registration processes are not so burdensome as to exclude legitimate voters.

The Trump administration had argued the directive was necessary to bolster public confidence and prevent non-citizens from voting. However, extensive studies and election audits in the U.S. have consistently found that voting by non-citizens is exceedingly rare. A previous attempt by the state of Kansas to impose a similar requirement was overturned in federal court after it prevented approximately 30,000 eligible citizens from registering.

For the Kenyan diaspora, particularly those who are now naturalized U.S. citizens, the ruling removes a potential barrier to exercising their civic rights in American elections. The decision ensures that the process established by the National Voter Registration Act, which requires an applicant to swear they are a citizen under penalty of perjury, remains the standard for the federal form.

Ultimately, the court's intervention reaffirms that fundamental changes to election administration must pass through the legislative process, subject to public debate and constitutional scrutiny, rather than being imposed by executive decree. This principle serves as a vital precedent in the ongoing global conversation about safeguarding democratic institutions and the rule of law.