A federal judge in the United States on Tuesday (local time) cleared the way for President Donald Trump's executive order to introduce citizenship verification procedures for mail-in voting to be implemented.

This marks a rebuttal to the Democratic Party's claim that the federal government's efforts to manage voter rolls through citizenship verification are illegal.

Federal District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that Democrats had failed to demonstrate they had standing to challenge the order or had suffered harm that would justify an injunction.

The judge stated, "Because the Executive Order does not direct the plaintiffs to take any action, and no agency has yet acted in a manner that would harm the plaintiffs under the order, the plaintiffs have not yet suffered any harm."

Democrats and the mainstream media have expressed collective outrage since President Trump signed the executive order on March 31.

The directive contained in the executive order aimed to address serious vulnerabilities in the election system by utilizing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to build a comprehensive list of citizens in each state. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to ensure that mail-in ballots are delivered only to eligible adult citizens whose citizenship has been verified.

Judge Nichols repeatedly refuted Democrats' claims that Trump's executive order could disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly their argument that creating state-level lists of citizens to verify voter rolls could be harmful, even if those lists were inaccurate.

He wrote, "It is still uncertain whether the state citizenship lists will contain inaccuracies when they are first compiled, and even if they do initially contain inaccuracies, the Executive Order requires procedures to be established to allow individuals to access and, if necessary, update or correct their information on the lists."

The judge also dismissed claims that the federal government sending voter information to state governments would violate voters' privacy.

He ruled, "The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that such action, the sharing of information that the federal government already knows about names, ages, and residences between government agencies, would cause sufficient injury to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution."

The ruling delivers another significant legal victory for President Trump amid the Democratic Party's ongoing campaign against election security measures nationwide.

By Sung Ku Hong, Chief Reporter of NNP USA / Special Correspondent for this newspaper NNP info@newsandpost.com