Blue Baywaters

BREAKING - A newly uncovered section of Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar’s mass amnesty Dignity Act, sponsored by at least 18 other House Republicans, reveals that it would allow illegal aliens deported under President Trump since January 2017 to return to the United States.

🤔THE ONE BIG THING MOST PEOPLE WILL MISS The mail-in ballot barcode provision is the spine of this EO. It sounds technical and boring "Intelligent Mail barcodes" but what it actually creates is a closed-loop pre-authorization system for mail voting. 👉You don't get a ballot mailed to you unless you're on a list the federal government has already verified. 👉That's a structural change to how American mail voting has ever worked. Every prior system sent ballots based on state voter rolls. This one requires federal pre-clearance.

More thoughts on Trump's EO. At first blush, I thought it was rather benign. That may be its greatest strength. The Youngstown Steel case, which is the definitive case on war powers, holds that the President's powers are at their "zenith" when he works in tandem with Congress. And that's what this EO does. It takes existing law, some of it 20 years old, and shoves it down the throats of all the democrat lawyers. While Trump still has the "Trump card" through his plenary authority under Article II to do way more, the restraint of this EO is like pitching the Supreme Court a soft ball, where they affirm long held legal standards. Much like the recent tariffs decision, where the Court struck down one provision, only to affirm several other routes for tariffs, with the President and Scott Bessent declaring victory by hiding their "real" power, I think a challenge to this EO may do the same. It invokes Article II’s command that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It frames non-citizen voting and unsecured mail-in ballots as violations of federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 611, 1015; 52 U.S.C. §§ 20511, etc.). The federal government has a direct duty to prevent dilution of the citizen vote through fraud or ineligible participation. Directing agencies (DHS, SSA, USPS, DOJ) to share verified citizenship data and secure postal transmission of ballots is faithful execution of existing prohibitions on non-citizen voting, not new legislation. Courts have recognized broad presidential discretion in directing executive-branch enforcement priorities, especially for national interests like election integrity. Providing states with federal databases (SSA records + DHS SAVE) assists compliance with NVRA/HAVA list-maintenance requirements without commandeering state officials. This is narrower than earlier 2025 attempts to rewrite registration forms, which faced injunctions; the 2026 EO focuses more on data-sharing and USPS operations. Also consider the Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, §4): The EO cites the federal obligation to guarantee every state “a Republican Form of Government.” I would argue that widespread non-citizen voting or unverifiable mail-in processes undermines the republican character of elections by allowing ineligible votes to dilute lawful ones. This provides a constitutional hook for federal intervention to protect the integrity of the electoral process itself, beyond routine “manner” regulations. In short, federal databases already exist for citizenship verification; the EO systematizes their use to fulfill HAVA/NVRA accuracy mandates. The irony of course is that the swamp used these systems to inflate numbers and commit massive fraud. Now their toys are being used against them.

President Trump can sign whatever the hell he wants to, but it won’t change the Constitution. The authority to set our election rules belongs to the states — and as Governor, I will protect your right to vote. That includes your right to vote by mail.

Wrong. The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures. The Supreme Court has interpreted “manner” broadly to include “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices,” etc. The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants (“requirements payments”) explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding. The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls (“list maintenance”), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy. Trump’s EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS’s SAVE program). Moreover, Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive. - HAVA already does exactly this—grants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards. - The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding “federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law.” This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes. Finally, Trump’s EO’s core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures: - USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable “Official Election Mail” envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processes—they simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service. This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds. Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections. The democrats are toast.

Wrong. The Elections Clause gives states the initial role to set time, place and manner, but expressly authorizes Congress to enact nationwide rules for federal elections (House and Senate races), including voter registration, list maintenance, fraud prevention, and ballot procedures. The Supreme Court has interpreted “manner” broadly to include “notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices,” etc. The Help America Vote Act imposes mandatory minimum federal standards on states (e.g., statewide computerized voter registration lists, provisional ballots, and election administration improvements) and provides federal grants (“requirements payments”) explicitly conditioned on compliance. States must submit plans showing how they meet these standards to receive funding. The National Voter Registration was also enacted under the Elections Clause. It mandates that states maintain accurate voter rolls (“list maintenance”), offer registration at certain agencies, and accept a federal mail-registration form. Courts have upheld NVRA provisions as valid under the Elections Clause precisely because they target voter eligibility verification and roll accuracy. Trump’s EO explicitly cites both HAVA and NVRA as authority. It does not create new substantive rules from scratch; it directs federal agencies to implement and enhance existing federal statutory requirements using federal databases (SSA records, DHS’s SAVE program). Moreover, Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to tax and spend for the general welfare includes the ability to attach conditions to federal grants to states. This is classic conditional spending, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987): conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest (here, integrity of federal elections), and not coercive. - HAVA already does exactly this—grants are withheld or conditioned on states meeting federal election-administration standards. - The EO (Section 5) authorizes withholding “federal funds from noncompliant states/localities where authorized by law.” This is not a new commandeering of state legislatures; states can decline the funds (and the attached conditions) if they wish. Precedent confirms Congress (and the executive administering congressional appropriations) can use the purse to encourage compliance without directly dictating state election codes. Finally, Trump’s EO’s core mechanisms operate through federal entities like the post office, not state legislatures: - USPS rulemaking directs the Postmaster General to require barcoded, trackable “Official Election Mail” envelopes and to transmit ballots only to voters on the federal/state-verified Mail-In/Absentee Participation Lists. USPS is a federal agency; the President may direct its operations via executive order. States are not forced to change their own mailing processes—they simply cannot use federal postal service for non-compliant ballots if they want the service. This avoids the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v. United States, 1997), which prohibits the federal government from forcing state officials to enforce federal law. Here, the federal government is regulating its own property (mail) and funds. Once Congress has acted (via HAVA/NVRA), federal requirements preempt conflicting state practices for federal elections. The democrats are toast.

If you live in the bright orange-shaded region, a portion of your electric bill will be going to pay for a massive transmission project being constructed to serve new data centers in Virginia. The cost of the project just more than doubled to $960 million.