Virginia joins lawsuit over federal election control
Jason Boleman//April 9, 2026//
Summary:
- Virginia joins coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general
- Lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- Executive order directs DHS to compile voter citizenship lists
Virginia joined a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general in suing President Donald Trump over an executive order aimed at federal election administration.
Attorney General Jay Jones announced Virginia’s involvement in the lawsuit in an April 3 press release. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The action stems from a March 31 executive order signed by Trump: “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to promulgate rules on mail-in ballots that include limiting mail-in or absentee ballots to only individuals on lists of eligible voters in the state created by the Department of Homeland Security.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State.”
Under the order, officials who do not follow the order can face prosecution.
“This is a blatant attempt by Donald Trump to sow confusion and distrust in our democratic processes and to influence the midterm elections for his own personal gain,” Jones said via press release.
Calling the order “plainly unconstitutional,” Jones said he is “proud to join attorneys general across the country in defending the right to the franchise and to use every legal tool available to us to stop the president’s illegal power grab.”
The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Constitution gives states the primary authority to administer elections, and that federal election procedures cannot be changed without an act of Congress. The attorneys general further argue that if left to stand, the executive order would require states to upend their election processes “at a dangerously quick pace — potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election.”
“The attorneys general allege that the President’s Executive Order violates the separation of powers and unlawfully interferes with states’ mail voting programs,” Jones’ office said in a statement. “The coalition asks the court to prevent the federal government from implementing or enforcing the Executive Order.”
Related Articles
Verdicts & Settlements
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Unicycle rider dies after being hit by car
- Premises Liability – Delivery driver injured by porch decking collapse
- Premises Liability – Fall down stairs at resort results in injuries, death
- Medical Malpractice – Jurors side with doctor in suit over rescue surgery
- Workers’ Compensation- Seasonal worker paralyzed in tobacco baler accident
- Medical Malpractice- Death from cancer followed stomach pain misdiagnosis
- Workers’ Compensation – Struck in face by forklift, woman suffers brain injury
- Negligence and Tort – Group home resident falls, sustaining femur fracture
- Medical Malpractice – Nursing facility patient dies after fracturing ankle in fall
- Medical Malpractice- Patient has bladder injury during colostomy reversal
- Premises Liability- Apartment guest burned by gas grill spewing fire
Opinion Digests
- The Most Important Opinions, January-June 2026
- Criminal – Court of Appeals wrongly vacated murder conviction
- Tort – U.Va. prevails on former professor’s claims
- Constitutional – Company’s due process claim against county is dismissed
- Administrative – Plaintiffs’ effort to enjoin ITC proceeding fails
- Patent and trademark – Amazon patent infringement suit transferred to New Jersey
- Tort – Chesterfield County dismissed from wrongful death suit
- Consumer Protection – Lawsuit over kratom survives motion to dismiss
- Criminal – Defendant convicted of attempted sexual exploitation of a child
- Evidence – Motion to exclude transmission expert is rejected
- Damages – Court awards pre-judgment interest following parties’ acquiescence
- Employment – Court approves overtime wage collective action settlement







