CHICAGO — Following President Trump’s social media statement that he would issue an executive order requiring voter ID for every ballot cast, the Institute for Responsive Government today released a new resource explaining the constitutional limits of presidential authority over elections. The new resource explains why no president can unilaterally impose voter ID requirements. 

Key facts include:

• States, not the President, set voting rules. Under the Constitution, authority over election procedures rests with Congress and state governments – not the executive branch. 
• Any presidential directive to impose voter ID would lack legal force. Executive orders cannot override state sovereignty. An attempt to mandate voter ID nationwide would be swiftly challenged in court and almost certain to fail. 
• Risk of confusion and disruption. Even without legal effect, such an order could create uncertainty for voters and significant administrative challenges for election officials.

“The Constitution makes clear that presidents cannot unilaterally rewrite election law,” said Sam Oliker-Friedland, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsive Government. “Any executive order on voter ID would be symbolic at best and disruptive at worst.”

Why it matters: As policymakers, election officials, and voters assess the legal and practical impact of persistent proposed changes to election rules, it is important to understand the boundaries of executive authority. 

President Trump’s social media post – and the promise of an executive order to come – are the latest steps he has taken in a broader effort to weaken election administration and undermine trust in election administrators. In response to an August social media claim from President Trump that he would eliminate mail voting and vote machines ahead of the 2026 midterms, the Institute for Responsive Government released a series of new resources to help better understand why presidents have no authority to upend state voting policies, and why both mail voting and voting machines are safe and secure.

In July, the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice was exploring ways to prosecute local election officials. Earlier this year, the administration cut funding for teams that monitor threats of foreign interference and help local election officials address security threats. The president also issued a largely illegal EO in March, which sought to burden local election officials with a number of new responsibilities while providing no actual funding whatsoever for the new work.

To speak with Sam Oliker-Friedland or other Responsive Gov policy experts about presidential authority over elections, please contact dan@responsivegov.org.

###

The Institute for Responsive Government is a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to ensuring state and federal governments work effectively for the very people they serve. The Institute for Responsive Government provides data, research, and expertise to elected officials in order to find practical policy solutions that make government systems more efficient, accessible, and responsive.