Executive Power, Electoral Trust, and the Ethics of Access

Executive Power and Electoral Integrity An Analysis of EO 14159

0:00

/945.24

1×

A Trivium-Based Analysis of Executive Order 14159

By: Layered Spiral Ethicist for the Great Conversation

Summary

On March 25, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14159, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections." Framed as a corrective to systemic vulnerabilities in the U.S. electoral system, the order mandates extensive voter verification protocols, restricts late-arriving ballots, centralizes enforcement mechanisms, and conditions federal funding on state compliance. This article analyzes the Executive Order using the Trivium method (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) and evaluates its ethical coherence through the lenses of John Adams’ Moral Algorithm, John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, and Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics.

Addition: The 2024 Election as Case Study in Suppression

The 2024 election provides concrete evidence of how the mechanisms outlined in EO 14159 would function if fully enacted. According to a forensic analysis by Greg Palast, at least 3,565,000 votes were effectively suppressed or rejected in the 2024 cycle. This figure was derived by analyzing multiple vectors of disenfranchisement, including:

• 4,776,706 voters purged from voter rolls, many through so-called “Poison Postcard” programs where voters were removed for failing to respond to nondescript mailers.
• 2,121,000 mail-in ballots disqualified for clerical errors.
• 1,216,000 provisional ballots uncounted.
• 585,000 in-person ballots rejected.
• 3.24 million new voter registrations either rejected or not processed in time.
• 317,886 voters directly challenged by vigilante “vote challengers.”

Palast’s analysis suggests that if all legal ballots had been counted, Kamala Harris would have won with 286 electoral votes, flipping Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The estimated margin of suppression in those states was greater than Trump’s official margin of victory.

Greg Palast

A controversial investigative journalist known for his work on voter suppression and corporate fraud. His credibility is mixed:

Strengths:

Awarded six Project Censored awards for under-reported stories

Won the ACLU's Upton Sinclair Freedom of Expression Award in 2004

His investigations have been used in legal actions, including:

A federal judge ruled in Palast's favor in a lawsuit against Brian Kemp, requiring the release of purged voter records

His findings were cited in lawsuits like Fair Fight Action Inc. v. Raffensperger and Black Voters Matter Fund et al. v. Raffensperger

Palast's work has influenced legal actions and public discourse on voter suppression, but his methods and conclusions remain subject to debate in the journalistic community.

The Vigilante Vote System

A direct historical descendant of Jim Crow-era tactics, the “Vigilante Vote Challenge” system enabled partisan actors—sometimes in costume and carrying firearms—to challenge the registrations of tens of thousands of voters, overwhelmingly targeting communities of color. In Georgia alone, 875,000 voters were removed by 2024 using these tactics. By August 2024, True the Vote had recruited over 40,000 volunteer challengers operating in 43 states. Their stated goal was to challenge over 2 million voters by Election Day.

Racial Disparity and Procedural Injustice

Mail-in ballot rejection rates in states like Georgia and Texas showed stark racial disparities:

• Black voters were 400% more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected.
• Georgia’s SB 202 law cut drop boxes by 75% in Black-majority counties.
• In Washington, audits confirmed that signature mismatches and clerical errors disproportionately affected first-time and minority voters.

The Poison Postcard Mechanism

In Georgia, voters like 92-year-old Christine Jordan, a cousin of Martin Luther King Jr., were removed from rolls after failing to respond to deceptive mailers. Independent audits revealed that 198,351 of the purged voters had not moved at all, yet were presumed ineligible.

Provisional Ballots as “Placebo Ballots”

Used disproportionately against Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters, provisional ballots created the illusion of voting rights while masking systemic exclusion. In 2024, 42.3% of provisional ballots were never counted. As Palast observed, “You think you’ve voted—but chances are, you did not.”

Intimidation and the Revival of White Terror Tactics

Polling stations in Atlanta received bomb threats on Election Day 2024, and armed vigilantes in Arizona monitored ballot drop boxes with drones and rifles. These were not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated strategy of intimidation.

Digital Suppression and AI Surveillance

Groups like Eagle AI, funded by right-wing billionaires, aimed to challenge hundreds of thousands of voters across swing states using algorithmically generated lists. These digital tactics are modern analogues of the “White Citizens’ Councils” of the 1950s—cleaner in form, equally toxic in function.

Conclusion: 2024 as Precedent for 2025

The mechanisms embedded in Executive Order 14159 are not speculative—they were tested in 2024 and contributed to what may be remembered as the most suppressed election in modern U.S. history. The order seeks to codify these methods under the banner of “integrity,” but the lived outcomes demonstrate widespread exclusion, racial targeting, and unconstitutional overreach.

EO 14159, when seen through the lens of the 2024 election, transforms from policy to codified disenfranchisement. Its rhetorical claim to restore trust masks its practical outcome: the legitimization of exclusion.

What the 2024 election reveals—unambiguously—is that laws and executive orders aimed at “protecting” elections can be engineered to do the opposite.

1. Grammar: Definition and Summary

Title: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections Date: March 25, 2025 Signed by: President Donald J. Trump

Purpose: The EO asserts that the U.S. electoral system is compromised by lax enforcement, inconsistent state procedures, and vulnerability to foreign interference. It compares American election security unfavorably with other nations and calls for stricter Federal oversight.

Major Directives:

• Requires documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration.
• Prohibits counting ballots received after Election Day, except for certain overseas voters.
• Authorizes cross-checking voter rolls with immigration, military, and social security databases.
• Re-certifies voting machines and bars the use of barcode-based ballots.
• Conditions federal funding on compliance with Federal election standards.
• Revokes Executive Order 14019, which had promoted voting access.

2. Logic: Systems, Impacts, and Contradictions

Systemic Shifts:

• Centralizes oversight by linking voter eligibility to Federal databases.
• Transforms the Election Assistance Commission into a gatekeeper of compliance.
• Utilizes federal funding as a lever to enforce state behavior.

Internal Contradictions:

• Affirms state responsibility for elections but imposes detailed Federal mandates.
• Cites fraudulent voting as a major issue despite negligible statistical evidence.
• Proposes to end ballot receipt extensions while maintaining exceptions, creating inconsistency.

Historical Context: Federal Election Interventions Compared

• Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (1965–2013): The most successful federal intervention to ensure access. It required preclearance of voting changes in states with histories of discrimination. It was largely dismantled by Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which led to a wave of restrictive state voting laws.
• Bush v. Gore (2000): Though judicial, not executive, the Supreme Court's intervention in Florida's recount process shaped public perception of federal intrusion into state election processes.
• Help America Vote Act (2002): Passed in response to the 2000 election chaos, it mandated improvements in voting systems and created the Election Assistance Commission, but left implementation to states.
• Trump Administration’s 2017 Voter Fraud Commission: Dissolved due to bipartisan resistance and lack of evidence for widespread fraud. It raised alarm over federal overreach and data privacy.

Resulting Trends:

• Erosion of trust in federal neutrality
• Increased state resistance to federal mandates
• Fragmented voting policies

3. Rhetoric: Framing, Persuasion, and Civic Trust

Narrative Devices:

• Invokes international comparisons to suggest U.S. inferiority.
• Frames mail-in ballots and voter registration leniency as national security risks.
• Positions Federal intervention as necessary and urgent, bypassing legislative reform.

Civic Consequences:

• Risks disenfranchising voters without access to specific documentation.
• Amplifies public distrust through overemphasis on unproven fraud.
• Undermines cooperative federalism by centralizing control and penalizing dissenting states.

Specific Populations Most Likely Affected:

• Married Women Who Changed Their Name: Name discrepancies between voter registration and original documents (e.g., birth certificate) may prevent validation.
• Elderly Voters: Many older Americans lack updated identification or have lost original documents through disaster, displacement, or bureaucratic failure.
• Homeless Individuals: Without fixed addresses, they often lack IDs or access to the documentation process.
• Low-Income Citizens: Especially those without driver's licenses or passports, who cannot afford fees for documentation.
• Native Americans: Many live in areas without standard street addresses, and tribal IDs are not always recognized.
• Naturalized Citizens: Face additional scrutiny or procedural delays when their naturalization documents differ from ID records.

These populations are structurally disadvantaged not by fraud, but by documentation gaps, inconsistent recordkeeping, and the inaccessibility of bureaucratic pathways.

Simulated Demographic Impact Models:

• Estimated disenfranchisement rates under strict documentary proof of citizenship laws (based on prior state-level studies):
  • Arizona (2004 law): 5.3% of registered voters flagged for removal, with 0.003% proven to be non-citizens.
  • Kansas (2013–2018 law): 31,000 applicants suspended due to documentation gaps—only 39 proven non-citizen cases.
• Ballot rejection rates for late-arriving mail-in ballots:
  • In the 2020 election, ~65,000 ballots were rejected nationwide for lateness, despite being postmarked before Election Day.
  • Rejection rates disproportionately affected Black, Hispanic, and young voters.
• Disparate impacts of voter ID laws (Brennan Center, 2006–2020):
  • Up to 11% of eligible voters lack a valid government-issued ID.
  • Among African American citizens, this rises to 25%.
  • Latino citizens: 16%
  • Citizens over age 65: 18%
  • Citizens earning less than $35,000/year: 15%

These data suggest the EO would likely cause the greatest disenfranchisement among low-income, elderly, rural, and minority voters—without measurable gains in fraud prevention.

Ethical Evaluation

John Adams’ Moral Algorithm
“Government is for the common good, not the profit or private interest of any one man, family, or class.”

Positive:

• Emphasizes ballot integrity and citizen-only voting.

Concerns:

• Creates access barriers for marginalized populations.
• Uses enforcement mechanisms that may punish states and citizens unequally.

Conclusion: Prioritizes partisan enforcement over participatory inclusion, threatening the common good.

John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance
“Would this be fair if I didn’t know my race, status, or political affiliation?”

Positive:

• Introduces uniform deadlines and standards.

Concerns:

• Imposes burdens on vulnerable groups, such as the poor, elderly, and disabled.
• Relies on centralized surveillance and enforcement over consent and transparency.

Conclusion: Fails Rawlsian fairness due to uneven impact and unbalanced access.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
“Does this cultivate moral character and civic virtue?”

Positive:

• Promotes record-keeping and clear standards.

Concerns:

• Fuels mistrust and fear rather than cooperation and responsibility.
• Encourages punitive rather than virtuous governance.

Conclusion: Encourages vice (suspicion, coercion) more than virtue (trust, stewardship).

Final Reflection: What Kind of Society Does This Produce?

Executive Order 14159 reorients the U.S. electoral process toward security, surveillance, and centralized enforcement. While its stated goal is electoral integrity, its effect is likely to be the disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations and the erosion of federalist cooperation. It invokes the language of fairness while imposing structurally unequal burdens, and while it purports to restore trust in elections, it does so by amplifying suspicion and fear. The order represents a pivot away from civic empowerment and toward procedural gatekeeping—an ethic of exclusion cloaked in the rhetoric of integrity.

Historically, such approaches have produced chilling effects on civic participation and spurred legal battles that reshaped the electoral landscape—often at great social cost.

Constitutional Limits on Executive Power Over Elections

• Article I, Section 4: Grants states the power to determine the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," with limited Congressional override.
• Tenth Amendment: Reserves powers not delegated to the Federal government to the States—including, arguably, election procedure administration.
• Separation of Powers Doctrine: Executive orders may not legislate or reinterpret law beyond Congressional intent.
• Recent Judicial Guidance:
  • Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Warned against federal overreach into state-run elections.
  • Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013): Affirmed that Federal forms cannot require documentary proof of citizenship unless authorized by Congress.
  • Moore v. Harper (2023): Rejected the Independent State Legislature Theory, reaffirming checks on unilateral election control.

EO 14159 walks a constitutional tightrope: it claims to enforce existing law, but arguably expands executive authority into domains historically guarded by states and Congress. If challenged, parts of the EO—particularly those mandating specific ID documentation or ballot deadlines—may be struck down as exceeding executive scope.