{"id":1520,"date":"2020-08-05T10:09:00","date_gmt":"2020-08-05T15:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=1520"},"modified":"2020-08-05T17:11:39","modified_gmt":"2020-08-05T22:11:39","slug":"can-president-trump-withhold-funds-when-states-expand-vote-by-mail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1520","title":{"rendered":"Can President Trump Withhold Funds When States Expand Vote-by-Mail?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In now-deleted tweets by President Trump, Trump claimed that Michigan sent \u201cabsentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election.\u201d<\/a> He alleged that the move was done \u201cillegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State\u201d<\/a> and continued onward to say \u201cI will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!\u201d<\/a> Of course, the Secretary of State of Michigan had done nothing of the sort; instead, the office had sent absentee ballot applications,<\/a> not absentee ballots, as the President later corrected. Hours later, President Trump tweeted that Nevada would also have funds withheld<\/a> because of the state\u2019s vote-by-mail efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While President Trump stated that he had \u201cvery specific funding in mind,\u201d<\/a> he failed to provide any further elaboration as to which funds he was referring to in his tweets. It is possible he envisioned withholding the election-assistance funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act<\/a>, or the CARES Act. Alternatively, he may have contemplated the funds available to states under the Help America Vote Act<\/a>, also known as HAVA, which appropriates funding to states to improve the administratio\u00ad\u00adn of elections for Federal office, including to enhance technology and make election security improvements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite having walked these statements\u2014regarding withholding funding\u2014back, the proverbial cat is out of the bag, scampering through the minds of legal scholars and concerned citizens. The prospect of punishing states for expanding mail voting has only become more significant as COVID-19 cases continue to multiply<\/a> and more states expand their vote-by-mail measures<\/a>. So, can President Trump withhold funds from states expanding access to vote-by-mail under the guise of voter fraud? In a word: no. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Trump\u2019s first obstacle in withholding any such funds is the Constitution. The Elections Clause <\/a>of the Constitution empowers the state legislatures to prescribe the times, places and manner of congressional elections, while Congress is given express authority to make or change such state regulations. Moreover, it is Congress, not the President, who is granted \u201cexclusive spending power\u201d in the Constitution\u2019s Spending and Appropriations Clauses<\/a>. As explained by the D.C. Circuit court, \u201cthe President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend [allocated] funds.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the President\u2019s  authority to withhold money allocated by Congress, or Congressional appropriations, is quite limited. The President could direct federal agencies by issuing an Executive Order and through his control over agency appointees. However, even if he tried this path, President Trump would face two additional legal obstacles: (1) The Impoundment Control Act of 1974,<\/a> which mandates that the President seek approval from Congress to withhold money and, (2) withholding election funds may violate a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 598<\/a>, which explicitly bars using appropriations to interfere with individuals\u2019 right to vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Trump\u2019s attempt to deny sanctuary cities and counties federal grants through Executive Order 13,768<\/a> five days after his inauguration provides a potent example of how these seperation of powers principles stop the president from unilaterally making such funding-related decisions. The Order directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to \u201censure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. [\u00a7] 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants,\u201d in effect directing these Executive Branch agencies to \u201cwithhold funds appropriated by Congress in order to further the Administration\u2019s policy objective of punishing cities and counties that adopt so-called \u2018sanctuary\u2019 policies.\u201d<\/a> The Ninth Circuit<\/a> found that the Executive Order constituted an unconstitutional attempt to co-opt Congressional authority to spend and place conditions on that spending. Because Congress had not authorized the withholding or redistribution of funds, the court ruled it violative of the principle of separation of powers and upheld the lower court\u2019s summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff counties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congress, however, can condition the receipt of federal funds on state compliance with federal directives. If Congress were to exercise that power, states running afoul of such directives would risk federal agencies recouping those funds.<\/a> Congress could pass a bill to limit the states\u2019 use of congressional appropriations for federal elections and has frequently employed the spending power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. For instance, in 1973 the Supreme Court held<\/a> that the United States Civil Service Commission could withhold certain federal funds under Congress\u2019 directive when the Oklahoma Highway Commission refused to follow its order to suspect a member of its commission under the Hatch Political Activity Act. In the vote-by-mail case, Congress could condition some federal election assistance on meeting certain requirements. But not a single congressional representative has signaled interest in such a bill or in amending the CARES Act or HAVA to condition funding on restricting the expansion of vote-by-mail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Setting aside the absolute lack of support for President Trump\u2019s claims that vote-by-mail would imperil election security, states are well within their authority to expand vote-by-mail. After all,  the Constitution grants states broad powers to prescribe the time, place and manner of holding elections for congressional representatives, which is paired with state control over elections for state offices. The Election Clause<\/a> states that \u201c[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.\u201d The clause explicitly grants state legislatures authority over the administration of their elections, enabling states to send mail ballots to registered voters. It also expressly grants Congress, <\/em>not the Executive, the power to preempt otherwise wholly local and individualized election administration. Notably, there is no pervasive scheme of federal regulation that would implicitly preclude state regulation to administer an all-mail election<\/a>, meaning a federal field preemption challenge to a state or local election administration law expanding mail voting would likely fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, under the Tenth Amendment<\/a> and existing federal election law, election administration is left completely up to the states; consider, for instance, that each state has differing rules <\/a>on voting by mail, early voting, and in-person voting. While Congress, through the Elections Clause, does have the power to displace state and local election statutes for federal elections, this requires that Congress explicitly override the states\u2019 power to administer elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a more obvious reason why Trump may be unable to withhold such funding: nearly all of the funding for the 2020 fiscal year has been used. The federal fiscal year ends in September, and many election-related expenditures take place earlier in the year, as elections require early preparation. State funds for primary elections are already spent<\/a>, as are many funds allocated for the general election, which have already been spent on everything from voting equipment purchases to ballot design. Even if Trump could withhold election funding from states, the opportunity for him to do so for this election cycle has mostly passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legally and practically, it\u2019s unlikely that President Trump can withhold whatever funding he may be referencing in his tweets. And even if he did, state and local election officials are beholden to election laws protecting citizens\u2019 right to vote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In now-deleted tweets by President Trump, Trump claimed that Michigan sent \u201cabsentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election.\u201d He alleged that the move was done \u201cillegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State\u201d and continued onward to say \u201cI will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!\u201d Of course, the Secretary of State of Michigan had done nothing of the sort; instead,…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[160,134,122],"tags":[154,71,114,111,177,312,313,140,176,178],"class_list":["post-1520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congressional-responses","category-constitutional-issues","category-covid-19","tag-cares-act","tag-congress","tag-coronavirus","tag-covid-19","tag-election","tag-funding","tag-help-america-vote-act","tag-pandemic","tag-vote-by-mail","tag-voter-fraud"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-ow","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1364,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1364","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":0},"title":"Vote-by-Mail Can Save Our Democracy, But Reforms Are Needed","author":"Sonni Waknin, Michael Cohen, Chad W. Dunn, & Matt A. Barreto","date":"April 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"As the world turns to strategies to stave off the worst effects of the novel coronavirus, now is the time to double down on our commitment to democracy. States around the country are pushing back primary and runoff elections in the hope that, if held at a later time, election\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Congressional Responses"","block_context":{"text":"Congressional Responses","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=160"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2470,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2470","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":1},"title":"Mail-In Voting and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in the Time of Coronavirus","author":"Victor Hiltner","date":"April 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"The right to vote is one of the most essential tenets of our liberal democracy, but in the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic, many United States citizens had to weigh the importance of their health against the importance of exercising their suffrage. Accordingly, several states considered and promulgated new voting\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1826,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1826","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":2},"title":"The Disregarded Canary: On the Plight of Black Women Voters","author":"Carliss Chatman & Marisa Jackson Sow","date":"October 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDe nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see.\u201d \u2013 Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God In American politics the Black woman voter is both mule and canary. Black women vote at higher rates than most demographics, and overwhelmingly and consistently vote\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Professor contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Professor contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=43"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1317,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1317","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":3},"title":"Stay-at-Home, Videoconferencing, and a Baptism of Fire for the California Consumer Privacy Act","author":"Michael P. Goodyear","date":"April 21, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has rapidly become one of the worst public health crises in U.S. history. Yet this is not only a critical moment for health, but also for privacy. With social isolation orders in forty-two states, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, collaborative technological services\u2014such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1453,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1453","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":4},"title":"Federalism and Communicative Confusion in the Time of COVID-19","author":"Harry Dodsworth","date":"June 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The states, rather than the federal government, have taken the lead in responding to COVID-19. This is in part because states have broad police powers that allow them to enact measures like stay-at-home orders. It is also because the federal government has avoided issuing guidance, even suppressing a recent CDC\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "COVID-19"","block_context":{"text":"COVID-19","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=122"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1484,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1484","url_meta":{"origin":1520,"position":5},"title":"Trump Weaponizes COVID-19 Against Illegal Immigrants","author":"Sergio Garcia","date":"June 11, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"As a criminal defense attorney in the border city of El Paso, Texas, I meet with illegal immigrants weekly, if not daily. I witness their journey firsthand. I represented families when President Trump piloted his family separation policy in El Paso. Today, I am witnessing yet another Trump assault against\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Constitutional Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Constitutional Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=134"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/140"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}