By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and CHRISTINA A. CASSIDY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit Thursday against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape elections across the U.S., calling it an unconstitutional invasion of states’ clear authority to run their own elections.

Related Articles

Lawyers for a detained Tufts student from Turkey demand she be returned to Massachusetts

Federal judge says she will temporarily block billions in health funding cuts to states

FACT FOCUS: Democratic leaders’ challenge to Trump’s election executive order misrepresented online

Senate confirms Mehmet Oz to take lead of Medicare and Medicaid agency

Judge says US government may have ‘acted in bad faith’ as he weighs contempt over deportation order

The lawsuit is the fourth against the executive order issued just a week ago. It seeks to block key aspects of it, including new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by Election Day.

“The President has no power to do any of this,” the state attorneys general wrote in court documents. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American.”

Trump’s order said the U.S. has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protection.” Election officials have said recent elections have been among the most secure in U.S. history. There has been no indication of any widespread fraud, including when Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about how U.S. elections are run. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” In 2020, Trump blamed a “rigged” election for his loss and falsely claimed widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.

Trump has argued his order secures the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare.

It has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.

The order also requires states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Some states count ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.

Forcing states to change, the suit says, would violate the broad authority the Constitution gives states to set their own election rules. It says they decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.

Congress has the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but the Constitution doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.

“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said the Trump administration is requiring states to either comply with an unconstitutional order or lose congressionally approved funding, something he said the president has no authority to do.

“In one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we’re not going to stand for it,” he said.

FILE – Chester County, Pa., election workers process mail-in and absentee ballots at West Chester University in West Chester, Pa., Nov. 4, 2020. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)

The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada, a presidential battleground, defended their state’s elections as fair, secure and transparent, and objected to the president’s attempt to interfere in how they are run.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump’s executive order was an attempt to impose “sweeping voting restrictions” across the country and disenfranchise voters.

A request sent to the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the Democratic attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Other lawsuits filed over the order argue it could disenfranchise voters because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under penalty of perjury, in order to vote.

Under the order, documents acceptable to prove citizenship would be a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license that “indicates the applicant is a citizen,” and a valid photo ID as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship.

Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not have easy access to their birth certificates, about half don’t have a U.S. passport, and married women would need multiple documents if they had changed their name. That was a complication for some women during recent town elections in New Hampshire, the first ones held under a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to register.

Not all REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses designate U.S. citizenship.

Cassidy reported from Atlanta.

Several changes in leadership in Stillwater Area Public Schools began on Thursday and will remain in effect for the remainder of the school year.

Brett Stringer, who has served as interim principal at Brookview Elementary School this winter, assumes the permanent role of principal. He brings more than a decade of experience as a school leader and has built a strong connection with the Brookview community, district officials said.

Malinda Major, who previously served as principal of Brookview, is serving as a principal on special assignment at Stillwater Middle School, with assigned duties as assistant principal.

Kristin Rolling, who has served as the assistant principal at Stillwater Middle School, is now assistant principal of Brookview and Lake Elmo elementary schools. Rolling began her career in Stillwater Schools as a school psychologist at the elementary level, district officials said.

The moves are part of a strategy to “place each administrator in a position where their skills can be most effective,” Superintendent Mike Funk said.

Related Articles

Woodbury attorney disbarred after being convicted of swindling client

Charges: Woodbury HS student had replica gun in backpack, ran from school

Forest Lake ‘career offender’ gets 12½-year prison term for swindling businesses, homeowners

Report of student with gun at Woodbury HS leads to search, apprehension

‘Like having a bunch of nice friends’: Volunteer phone line for positive messages marks 30th year

By DEVNA BOSE

A federal judge will temporarily block President Donald Trump’s administration from cutting billions in federal dollars that support COVID-19 initiatives and public health projects throughout the country.

Related Articles

Senate confirms Mehmet Oz to take lead of Medicare and Medicaid agency

Judge says US government may have ‘acted in bad faith’ as he weighs contempt over deportation order

Pentagon watchdog to review Hegseth’s use of Signal app to convey plans for Houthi strike

Trump’s tariffs aren’t strictly reciprocal. Here’s how he calculated them

These are the places affected by Trump’s tariffs

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, appointed by Trump in 2019 but first nominated by former President Barack Obama, in Rhode Island said Thursday that she plans to grant the court order sought by 23 states and the District of Columbia.

“They make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits, so I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order,” said McElroy, who plans to issue a written ruling later.

New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted about the judge’s decision immediately after the hearing, saying: “We’re going to continue our lawsuit and fight to ensure states can provide the medical services Americans need.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Kane objected to the temporary restraining order in court but she said she was limited in the argument she could make against it, adding that her office was unable to thoroughly review the thousands of documents under the time limitation.

The states’ lawsuit, filed Tuesday, sought to immediately stop the $11 billion in cuts. The money was allocated by Congress during the pandemic and mostly used for COVID-related initiatives, as well as for mental health and substance use efforts. The lawsuit said losing the money would devastate U.S. public health infrastructure, putting states “at greater risk for future pandemics and the spread of otherwise preventable disease and cutting off vital public health services.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has defended the decision, saying that the money was being wasted since the pandemic is over.

State and local public health departments already have laid off people, including nearly 200 employees at the Minnesota Department of Health. North Carolina says it stands to lose about $230 million, and California officials put their potential losses at $1 billion.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who is also part of the lawsuit, said half a billion dollars in public health grants that support long-term care for the elderly and immunizations for children were at stake in his state.

“As a result of taking the Administration to court, these dollars will now start flowing again,” he wrote on X.

The temporary block on chopping health funding is the latest legal setback for the Trump administration, which is facing some 150 lawsuits on issues ranging from immigration to deep financial and job cuts at federal agencies to transgender rights. Federal judges have issued dozens of orders slowing — at least for now — the president’s ambitious conservative agenda.

AP reporter Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

“When polls only ask people how they feel about ‘tough-on-crime’ solutions, they receive only validation for those very solutions.”

A rally last year in support of the city’s mental health clubhouses. (Gerardo Romo/NYC Council Media Unit)

As budget negotiations continue in Albany and the mayoral primary heats up in New York City, more and more polls are coming out focused on ways to improve safety on our streets and subways. Accurate polling, particularly when it comes to safety, requires actually giving respondents a choice.

When polls only ask people how they feel about “tough-on-crime” solutions, they receive only validation for those very solutions. When presented with a choice, however, people prefer comprehensive, community-based solutions over ones focused on police, incarceration, and punishment.

Recent polls have asked New Yorkers in broad terms about complex issues like involuntary hospitalization or surging police presence on the subway. Although the headlines sound compelling, these polls failed to offer alternative solutions. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the findings support those punitive approaches to safety.

The polling, while flawed, reflects an unfortunate truth: many New Yorkers only hear from their leaders about “tough-on-crime” policies. However, the evidence shows that community-based programs and services work at making the city safer. New York City’s crisis respite centers, clubhouses, and stabilization centers keep people safe in their communities, saving money and avoiding psychiatric admissions.

The city’s Crisis Management System has contributed to a 40 percent reduction in shootings in the neighborhoods with community-based programming that addresses essential needs like education, healthcare, and employment. Bail reform initially reduced the city’s jail population by 31 percent and led to less recidivism overall. And supportive housing has been proven to reduce incarceration, homeless shelter stays, and emergency hospitalizations.

Ask a New Yorker how the city invests in safety, and you’ll likely hear only about police and corrections. But when you ask what makes them feel safe, the answer is more nuanced: according to Vera Action’s December 2024 poll of likely New York City voters, gun control (36 percent) and affordable housing (28 percent) topped the list, ahead of more police (26 percent) and strict criminal laws (18 percent).

Eighty-four percent of respondents were in favor of expanding supportive housing, mental health treatment, and drug treatment so New Yorkers can await trial in their homes instead of on Rikers, and 60 percent supported “more healthcare clinics and mobile crisis response teams so that people with mental illness don’t wait months, or even years, to get help.”

New Yorkers are hungry for policy solutions; present them anything with the promise of improving safety, and they are likely to support it. But when faced with a choice between doubling down on punishment or investing in community-based, evidence-backed solutions, New Yorkers choose policies rooted in what actually works.

According to Vera Action’s December poll, 58 percent of New Yorkers prefer a comprehensive approach to safety—funding “good schools, jobs, and affordable housing”—over increasing our reliance on harsh sentences, strong bail laws, incarceration, and policing.

On policing, the idea that we must either expand the NYPD or dismantle it is a false choice—and one that New Yorkers see through. When asked for their thoughts on law enforcement, 38 percent of respondents said they wanted to support the police while holding them accountable if they use excessive force or abuse their power.

More funding for police lagged behind by 28 percentage points. And 59 percent of respondents agreed that “police should focus on investigating and solving serious crimes and send trained experts to help New Yorkers who are homeless or in crisis,” compared to 33 percent who supported even limited use of stop-and-frisk.

Ultimately, New Yorkers want better policing, not more of it, and they support sending the right first responder to the right crisis. In many cases, armed police are not well-suited to address people’s underlying needs or de-escalate tense situations. Social workers, healthcare clinicians, substance use counselors, peer specialists, and other trained experts can better support people in ways that break cycles of instability and crime, making us all safer.

Rather than jumping straight to involuntary hospitalization, more police, and putting more people in jail, we need our leaders to look at the evidence and invest in solutions that address root causes and prevent future crime. Not only is it good policy—it’s also overwhelmingly popular with New Yorkers, provided they’re given the option.

Alana Sivin is the director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s Greater Justice New York initiative, leading efforts to advance criminal legal reform across the Empire State.

The post Opinion: New Yorkers Support Community-Based Safety Solutions. You Just Have to Ask. appeared first on City Limits.