WASHINGTON -- Attorneys representing Democrats and civil rights organizations argued before a federal judge on Thursday that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by issuing an executive order that curbs voters' options for casting ballots via mail.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols held off on issuing a ruling from the bench regarding the plaintiffs' motion to prevent officials from enforcing Trump's March 31 directive, his second election-related order since securing a second term in the White House. This lawsuit joins several others challenging the order, asserting that the Constitution reserves election administration to states and Congress, not the president.

Trump's earlier executive order, which sought to overhaul elections by mandating proof of citizenship documents, faced widespread blocks from federal judges on comparable constitutional grounds. He released this newest order after his supported voting legislation failed to advance in Congress. The dispute unfolds amid ongoing primary elections, with officials gearing up for the complexities of the upcoming midterm contests.

"I recognize the urgency of the timeline," Nichols remarked, probing arguments from both parties without signaling his likely decision.

Plaintiffs' lawyers contended that the president cannot unilaterally alter election procedures to benefit himself and the Republican Party. They described the order's mandates as unlawful efforts to pressure states into restricting voter registration and access to ballots.

"This is damaging our clients daily during peak election season," stated Orion Nevers, counsel for the NAACP.

Democrats tend to favor mail voting more than other groups. Trump has long criticized the method, baselessly alleging widespread fraud even before his 2020 defeat - claims discredited by audits, reviews, and even Republican-led probes, despite fueling the January 6, 2021, Capitol assault.

Back in office, Trump has vowed Republican control over elections in Democratic strongholds and initiated probes into the 2020 results.

The recent executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a nationwide list of verified eligible voters by state and bars the U.S. Postal Service from delivering absentee ballots to individuals absent from state-approved lists.

The administration urged the judge to reject the suit. Justice Department lawyer Stephen Pezzi argued Thursday that the challenge is untimely, labeling it "shadowboxing" over a voter list that does not yet exist.

"Addressing these issues hypothetically proves challenging," Pezzi noted.

Nichols, a Trump appointee, pressed Pezzi on the legality of distributing such a list to states.

"The onus would fall on plaintiffs to demonstrate its illegality," Pezzi responded. "That's not meant to be evasive."

Under Trump's order, federal agencies must assemble a roster of adults confirmed as U.S. citizens and provide it to states at least 60 days ahead of federal elections.

"No legal method exists to produce such a list," asserted Lalitha Madduri, representing Democratic plaintiffs.

Danielle Lang, attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens, called the order a deliberate bid to sow "maximum chaos and confusion" among local election administrators.

"They require straightforward guidance," Lang emphasized.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver.