Can a president decide mail-in voting rules? The Constitution says no. Will it be enough?
Few issues in American politics have become as charged as the fight over mail-in voting. Former President Donald Trump has made opposition to expanded absentee and mail ballots a cornerstone of his post-presidency agenda, arguing—without evidence—that they are vulnerable to fraud. His recent attempts to ban or restrict their use nationwide have triggered swift backlash in courts and state governments, raising profound constitutional questions about presidential authority over elections.
Can a President Decide Mail-In Voting Rules?
The short answer is no. The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, with Congress able to step in and set standards. The president has no such authority. As legal scholars note, Trump “has no legal power to mess with the election” because elections are managed at the state and local level, not from the White House.
Even efforts by Congress to standardize mail voting would be subject to legal review and constitutional limits. Executive orders, by contrast, cannot rewrite election laws. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that such unilateral moves are unconstitutional.
Trump’s Executive Order and Court Challenges
In March 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14248, which attempted to reshape federal election procedures. It required voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship, prohibited states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and threatened to withhold federal funds from states that did not comply.
Almost immediately, a coalition of 19 Democratic attorneys general sued, arguing the order was an unconstitutional overreach. In June, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking key provisions, ruling that only Congress—and not the president—has the authority to impose such rules on elections.
Further challenges followed. In Massachusetts, a federal court issued another injunction in August, reinforcing the constitutional barrier against federal executive control of elections.
State-Level Pushback
While courts moved to block Trump’s order, states also asserted their independence. In Arizona, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes dismissed Trump’s pledge to ban mail-in voting as unenforceable, saying he would “tell [him] to pound sand.” Arizona, like most states, runs its own elections and has the constitutional right to do so. State officials there signaled they would resist any federal intrusion and, if necessary, challenge it in court.
State By State Snapshot Table —showing where mail-in voting is being expanded, restricted, or legally challenged (Click here if you cannot see the table when viewing on MSN)
| State | Mail-In Voting Policy | Recent Developments |
| California | All-mail elections | Continues to automatically mail ballots to all registered voters. |
| Colorado | All-mail elections | No major changes; maintains universal mail voting. |
| Hawaii | All-mail elections | No major changes. |
| Nevada | All-mail elections | Expanded to permanent universal mail voting in 2021; remains in effect. |
| Oregon | All-mail elections | Pioneer of mail voting; system unchanged. |
| Utah | All-mail (phasing out by 2029) | Republicans passed legislation requiring opt-in, stricter ID rules, and ballot deadlines (AP News). |
| Vermont | All-mail for general elections | Ballots automatically mailed for general elections only. |
| Washington | All-mail elections | System unchanged. |
| Arizona | No-excuse absentee voting | Secretary of State rejected Trump’s proposed federal ban; pledged to resist in court (Axios). |
| Idaho | Excuse required (with broad allowances) | Proposed bill to restrict absentee voting to limited groups failed to advance. |
| Texas | Excuse required | Republican lawmakers continue to resist expansions and have tightened ID laws. |
| Georgia | No-excuse absentee voting | Laws passed since 2021 added stricter ID requirements and earlier ballot deadlines. |
| Florida | No-excuse absentee voting | Expanded ID requirements; limits on ballot drop boxes. |
| Pennsylvania | No-excuse absentee voting (since 2019 Act 77) | Ongoing litigation over deadlines and ballot curing. |
| Michigan | No-excuse absentee voting | Expanded access through constitutional amendment (2022); resistant to Trump’s agenda. |
| New York | Excuse required (narrow) | Efforts to expand no-excuse absentee voting rejected by voters in 2021. |
| Massachusetts | No-excuse absentee voting | Courts issued injunction blocking Trump’s executive order within the state |
| Southern GOP States (e.g., Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina) | Excuse required | Legislatures maintain strict limits; little sign of expansion. |
Where Trump’s Influence Matters
Although Trump cannot directly ban mail-in ballots, he wields influence in other ways. His appointments to the Department of Justice and federal courts shape how election disputes are handled. He can use executive orders to force legal battles that create uncertainty and drain state resources. He also controls federal funding priorities for election security and administration.
Most significantly, his rhetoric continues to pressure Republican-led legislatures to enact restrictive laws. Since 2021, many GOP-controlled states have moved to tighten mail voting eligibility, shorten ballot receipt windows, or impose stricter voter ID requirements. In 2025, Utah became the first state to begin rolling back its universal mail-in system, requiring voters to opt in, provide additional identification, and ensure ballots arrive by Election Day.
Legal Consensus: States Remain in Control
Across the political spectrum, constitutional scholars and legal analysts agree that Trump’s attempts to dictate voting methods exceed presidential authority. The Constitution places the power to run elections firmly in the hands of the states, with Congress holding the backstop role. Courts have shown little hesitation in reaffirming that principle.
As the Washington Post explained, efforts by Trump to centralize election control are “a tactical adjustment, not a change in strategy,” as he continues to sow distrust in mail voting while knowing his legal footing is weak.
Conclusion: Limits of Presidential Power
The flurry of lawsuits and injunctions in 2025 demonstrates the limits of presidential power over American elections. Trump can pressure, sue, and threaten, but he cannot dictate how states manage mail-in voting. His influence is most visible in Republican-led legislatures that have taken up his call to restrict ballot access. Yet courts and constitutional safeguards remain a strong bulwark against federal overreach.
In the end, the clash over mail-in voting underscores a deeper truth: the U.S. system of decentralized, state-run elections is both a source of resilience and a flashpoint for partisan battles. Trump’s efforts may reshape the political conversation, but legally, states continue to hold the keys to how Americans cast their ballots.
