Federal Judge Extends Block on Postal Service Mail-In Ballot Rule Ahead of Midterms
U.S. PoliticsWell-covered
|
The Facts
- Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction Friday barring the Postal Service from enforcing its new mail-in ballot rule.
- The injunction replaces a temporary restraining order that had been set to expire Sept. 10.
- The Postal Service rule requires states to submit lists of mail-ballot recipients and add unique barcodes to ballot envelopes.
- The Postal Service adopted the rule following President Trump's March executive order seeking to restrict mail-in voting.
- Two dozen Democratic-led states and voting rights groups sued to block the rule.
- Talwani wrote that Congress never delegated authority over voting to the Postal Service.
- Talwani found that implementing the rule this close to the election would likely disenfranchise voters.
- North Carolina became the first state to begin sending out mail ballots for the midterms on Friday.
- The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift Talwani's earlier order, and that request remains pending.
Context
What would the Postal Service rule actually require of states?
The rule would require election officials to place unique barcodes on ballot envelopes and require states to upload lists of voters who requested mail ballots Independent,mint. The Postal Service could then refuse delivery of ballots to voters not in the database or reject ballots that fail to meet the standards POLITICO,https://www.outlook….
Why is this described as a repeated or third ruling?
Talwani had previously blocked a related Trump effort on mail voting, and on Aug. 26 issued a 14-day temporary restraining order against the Postal Service rule while she weighed longer-term relief CBS News,Reuters,NBC News. The Supreme Court's conservative majority had earlier lifted one of her orders in the dispute India Today,TimesNow. Friday's preliminary injunction is the latest ruling in that sequence NYT.
What happens next in the case?
The administration's emergency application over the earlier temporary order is pending at the Supreme Court, and officials are expected to appeal Friday's injunction as well POLITICO,Guardian,NYT. Separately, the Postal Service's inspector general has opened an investigation into a whistle-blower report about the agency's online voter-data screening system NYT, and Senate Democrats on the committee overseeing USPS urged the agency to halt work on the rules Reuters.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- A mail-voting system needs both written handling rules and an authority actually entitled to write them; neither framing treats administrative convenience alone as sufficient warrant.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the story is about an agency claiming power over elections Congress never gave it, or about routine ballot-tracking discipline falling to a calendar-based objection.
- Why they won’t converge
- The divide is over constitutional allocation and burden of proof — who must justify themselves, an agency claiming election authority or the states challenging it — so agreeing on what the rule requires settles nothing about who owns the question.
How left and right read it
The right to have your ballot counted should never depend on an agency reaching for power Congress never gave it. That is precisely why Talwani's ruling matters: she found no delegation of authority over voting to the Postal Service, and she found that imposing new ballot-list and barcode demands this late would likely disenfranchise voters — with North Carolina already mailing ballots. The burden lies with the executive, not voters. Keep the rule blocked.
“We are less than two months from Election Day and President Trump is still trying to block millions of Americans from receiving ballots in the mail.” — The New York Times
An election system worth trusting runs on written handling rules, so asking states to identify mail-ballot recipients and add unique barcodes to envelopes is ordinary administrative discipline, not a seizure of authority. Instead, enforcement was blocked at the behest of Democrat-led states and voting rights groups, on a finding that turns on how close the election is. Yet nearness to a vote is no veto; the burden lies with those demanding a rule fall.
“Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the injunction at the behest of Democrat-led states and voting rights groups, after the first state in the country sent out mail ballots for the elections on Friday.” — NewsMax
The receipts — all 99 sources
Wire services (11)
Independent coverage (50)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.