Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Block on New USPS Mail Ballot Rule
U.S. PoliticsWell-covered
|
The Facts
- The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Sept. 3 to lift a lower-court order blocking a new USPS mail ballot rule.
- The rule would let the Postal Service refuse to deliver ballots in states that do not share voter lists with the agency.
- The rule would also impose new standards for ballot envelopes that the Postal Service would check before accepting them.
- The USPS rule implements an executive order Trump signed in March directing federal agencies to tighten mail-in voting.
- U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Boston temporarily blocked the rule, finding it was probably unconstitutional.
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the emergency request on behalf of the Justice Department.
- The administration went to the Supreme Court before a federal appeals court ruled on its parallel emergency request.
- A coalition of 23 Democratic-led states and voter advocacy groups is challenging the executive order in federal court.
- North Carolina was scheduled to send its first mail ballots to voters on Friday, Sept. 4.
- At a hearing Thursday in Boston, Talwani questioned attorneys about how the rule could be implemented before early voting begins.
- Talwani said the changes could cause enough disruption to produce what she called "major disenfranchisement."
- The November midterm elections will determine control of Congress.
Context
Has the Supreme Court already ruled on whether the policy is legal?
No. Last month the justices set aside an earlier order from Judge Talwani, but on procedural grounds, finding it premature because the Postal Service had not yet finalized its rules Aol,newsORF.at. The court has not decided whether the policy itself is lawful Newsweek,Spiegel Online.
What is each side arguing?
Sauer argued the block imposes "serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the states themselves, and the voting public" and partially nullifies Postal Service efforts to address voter fraud risk NYT,NBC News. Challengers argue neither the president nor the Postal Service has a role in deciding which ballots are valid, and that the rule could lead to thousands of valid ballots being rejected NYT,Yahoo News.
What happens next in the lower court?
Talwani's block is temporary and set to expire within days, and she is weighing whether to extend it USA Today,CBS News,CBS News. A federal appeals court is separately considering the administration's request to pause her order but has not yet acted infobae,CBS News.
Where Left and Right agree, and where they split
- Where Left and Right agree
- Both reads accept that the rule ties ballot delivery to state cooperation with the Postal Service, and that trust in mail voting is genuinely at stake in the outcome.
- Where Left and Right split
- Whether the story is about a federal agency conditioning ballot delivery on state compliance, or about states demanding trust in rolls they refuse to let anyone verify.
- Why they won’t converge
- The divide is trust-in-institution: one side treats state-run voter rolls as presumptively legitimate and federal screening as the risk, the other reverses that presumption, so shared facts about the rule leave the burden of proof unassigned.
- Watch for
- Alabama was set to begin mailing ballots September 9, a date Sauer's application flagged as the point past which envelopes are already in the stream, ahead of the November 3 midterms.Raw Story
How left and right read it
The mail is not a lever for extracting concessions from states, and ballots are not a bargaining chip. Yet this rule would let the Postal Service withhold delivery in states that decline to hand over their voter lists, and screen envelopes against new federal standards before accepting them — which is why a judge found it probably unconstitutional. Having lost below, the administration wants the Supreme Court to intervene before the appeals court has even ruled. That impatience is itself the tell.
“Rather than allow that legal process to play out, the administration is now taking the highly unusual step of trying to skip ahead and get immediate intervention” — The New York Times
A ballot is only as trustworthy as the rolls behind it, so a state that refuses to share its voter lists with the agency delivering its ballots is asking for trust it will not help anyone verify. That is the reciprocity at issue in the March executive order and the envelope standards the Postal Service would check. One judge's finding should not settle it. Lift the injunction and let the verification stand while the case is argued.
“The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow restrictions on mail-in ballots in an attempt to prevent illegal aliens from voting in the November midterm elections.” — Townhall
The receipts — all 81 sources
Wire services (5)
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.