The Supreme Court recently maintained a lower court’s decision blocking the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail voting regulations. This decision prevents the implementation of the Postal Service’s new regulations while a legal challenge is ongoing. Some states have already sent out mail ballots, and election officials at both state and local levels have expressed concern about their ability to comply with the regulations in time for the upcoming elections.
The Trump administration argued that these regulations are necessary to prevent fraud in mail voting. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described such fraud as a form of vote dilution that undermines public confidence. However, evidence of widespread voter fraud has not been provided. Interestingly, President Trump himself participated in mail voting in Florida this year.
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, indicated that the government is unlikely to succeed in its appeal of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, suggesting the policy is unlikely to be proven unlawful. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority, believing the final rule may fall within the Postal Service’s authority. Yet, he acknowledged that applying it before the midterms would violate the Administrative Procedure Act, due to insufficient time for officials to implement it.
Under the Postal Service’s proposed rules, mail ballot envelopes would need specific designs, including unique barcodes. Election officials would also have to provide certain voter information through an online portal. These policies have alarmed officials worried about disenfranchising many voters. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups claim the rules infringe on states’ authority to conduct elections, arguing that the Postal Service lacks the power to set mail voting regulations.
In opposition, the Trump administration defended the rules as constitutional, claiming they impose only minimal requirements. Solicitor General Sauer noted that while states regulate elections, they cannot exempt election-related mail from the Postal Service’s authority granted by Congress.
The Supreme Court’s decision concludes a legal struggle over Trump’s efforts to limit mail voting. The conflict began after he signed an executive order directing the Postal Service to regulate mail ballots and for Homeland Security to compile citizenship lists. This order led to a lawsuit from Democratic-led states.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani initially blocked implementation of this order, but the Supreme Court temporarily halted that ruling. After the Postal Service finalized its rules, a new lawsuit emerged, leading Talwani to issue a temporary order blocking the rules’ enforcement. As the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed this order, the Trump administration sought Supreme Court intervention, though they later withdrew a related application.
In a recent hearing, Talwani raised potential issues of disenfranchisement from the Postal Service’s plans, criticizing a lack of detailed explanations. Meanwhile, an anonymous whistleblower alerted Congress to possible ‘catastrophic problems’ with the Postal Service’s portal system. The platform was described as untested, rushed, and potentially problematic, especially with the verification process potentially hindering ballot delivery to voters.