North Dakota is the only state in the country without voter registration, which makes Trump’s order on creating a national voter list very concerning. States don’t keep a list of voters ahead of time. They generally verify eligibility when people show up, and it’s worked for a long time without a lot of issues.

That’s why Trump’s voter list seems to have ulterior motives. It assumes every state should operate the same way, when in reality election systems are built around local needs and are left for each state to decide the process. In a rural state like ours, simplicity matters. Adding a federal layer risks creating confusion, outdated records, and more barriers for people who are already eligible to vote under state law.

The absentee ballot piece is especially troubling. In many parts of the country, including North Dakota, people rely on absentee voting because of distance, work, or weather. If access to that depends on whether your name lines up perfectly in a centralized system, you’re going to see eligible voters get caught in the cracks.

States have long held authority over how elections are run, and that includes how voters are verified. A nationwide system pushed through executive action is likely to be challenged as overstepping that authority. As it should be. 

A national voter list can be discriminatory in practice, affecting rural residents, Native communities, lower-income voters, and frequent movers due to incomplete or outdated data. Since registration isn’t required in North Dakota, relying on a federal list could exclude eligible voters if their information doesn’t match or is missing. This system can create equal protection concerns by disproportionately burdening certain groups, potentially treating voters differently based on geography, income, or documentation access.

I also question whether a president can effectively change how states manage voter eligibility without Congress. Courts should be skeptical of that kind of move, especially when it interferes with existing state systems or risks unequal access to voting.

This is the kind of idea that’s going to spend more time in court than in practice, and there’s a strong chance major parts of it don’t hold up. 

Let’s hope the courts see this for what it really is, the latest attempt of disenfranchisement.