hears

BOSTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Trump’s executive order seeking to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution.

“This is going to be a sea change in the way that some states administer their ballots,” said Michael Cohen, who was part of a team representing California, adding that “it will be difficult to overstate the disruption that this will cause.”

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

His latest order is being challenged through multiple lawsuits, including two filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in one of the two Boston cases, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide.” The group said the order transforms “the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”

“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.

The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referred to were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.

Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list, but that it was “unlikely” any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.

“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that “we don’t want this process to be strangled in the crib, so to speak.”

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani took the requests for motions to halt the order, along with motions to dismiss the cases under advisement.

During oral arguments, Talwani expressed concerns about whether the federal system envisioned under the executive order could be ready for the upcoming midterm elections and about the risks posed to election workers who rely on a state list that differs from the federal one. She also raised doubts about the reliability of a federal list — noting, for example, women who changed their names after getting married or someone who has moved from state to state might be missed.

“Isn’t there a reasonable fear and concern on behalf of voters that they will be precluded?” Talwani asked.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the postal service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The postal service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

A Paralympic athlete died “in an accident waiting to happen” when a metal bar fell on him, a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey has been told.

Abdullah Hayayei, a wheelchair using shot putter from the United Arab Emirates, was killed when a training cage collapsed in a gust of wind at a training facility in Newham, London, as he practised for the World Athletics Championships in July 2017.

UK Athletics, the event’s organiser, is being sentenced for corporate manslaughter.

Keith Davies, 78, UK Athletics’ former head of sport, is being sentenced for a breach of health and safety law. Both Mr Davies and UK Athletics pleaded guilty at a hearing earlier this year.

Prosecuting, John Price KC told judge Richard Marks KC that the equipment that killed Mr Hayayei, 36, was missing key components.

The entire structure collapsed in the wind, and a heavy metal bar weighing 25kg hit the athlete on the head. Mr Hayayei, who had a history of cerebral palsy, died at the scene.

The court heard a victim impact statement from Badriah Rashid Zayed Al-Yahyaei, the victim’s widow, who described how her husband’s death had left her alone with five young children.

“It was a huge shock to me because I was waiting for the news of his victory and success,” she said.

“Suddenly the news reached me. I could not comprehend it at first and refused to believe it, and today that moment is still in my mind.

“What happened was a result of gross negligence that could have been avoided had safety rules been adhered to.

“My husband went out to represent his country, raise the name of the UAE, and returned as a corpse.”

Mr Davies and representatives from UK Athletics listened as the prosecutor explained how key base support components from the heavy shot-putting cage had been missing that afternoon.

The KC said Mr Davies had told investigators that the equipment had been assembled according to the instructions.

“At the very least,” argued Mr Price, the official “ought to have known that it was incorrect”.

He added: “The evidence shows he actually knew it and therefore this was not a truthful statement by him.”

An expert called to the Newham site after the accident said some of the bolts were missing, and the KC claimed there was a “culture and practice” of assembling the cage without key pieces.

“It was an accident waiting to happen,” he told the court.

A legal statement which UK Athletics produced years after the incident was described by the prosecutor as ‘”a deeply unworthy document by a national sporting body and one of which it should be ashamed”.

UK Athletics, said the KC, had attempted to lay all the blame upon Mr Davies “and even appear to have pointed the finger at the Newham venue”.

Representing Mr Davies, Mark Balysz KC said his client had written to the court in advance of the sentencing.

Mr Davies says he has found it “so very hard” to come to come to terms with the athlete’s death.

“I have woken every night thinking about his loss, and his poor family,” he said.

“These feelings have intensified since I found out about the investigation for manslaughter.”

The hearing continues, and Judge Marks is expected to hand down his sentencing decisions on Tuesday.

Shortly before 22:00 BST on 7 May, Lavryovych sent Pochynok a message on Telegram saying: “Look, we won’t talk much on the phone. At that address, there’ll be a car, need to check if it’s there. If it is there then basically today we’ll do the job. We’ll have money. And this week, if we plan everything well today, tomorrow there may be another one, we’ll make more money.”