States sue USPS over mail-in voting rules ahead of midterms
A federal judge has once again intervened, blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to restrict mail-in voting. This decision came just about a week before the anticipated mailing of ballots for the upcoming midterm elections.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary restraining order for 14 days, preventing the enforcement of a new rule from the U.S. Postal Service that would have put Trump’s directive into effect.
It’s expected that this ruling will be appealed soon, possibly returning to the Supreme Court shortly after it recently allowed the administration to proceed with certain actions.
This block arrives after Democrats and various voting rights organizations refiled their lawsuits in line with a recent Supreme Court ruling. Importantly, that ruling did not evaluate the legality of Trump’s order itself but noted that Talwani acted prematurely.
The administration has recently established a formal rule governing how states should handle and submit mail-in ballots to ensure acceptance by USPS. This effectively returns the legal dispute to its starting point.
This case could greatly affect November’s elections, considering that about one-third of voters utilize mail-in ballots. Election officials express concerns about the lack of time to adjust their systems according to the new requirements.
The Postal Service has indicated that it will not accept mail ballots unless states provide required recipient data through its portal and adhere to specific envelope and barcode guidelines.
Judge Talwani pointed out, “Plaintiff states have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms.”
A hearing regarding the case is scheduled for September 3.
Democrats and advocates for voting rights argue that both the Postal Service’s new rule and Trump’s order violate constitutional provisions. They affirm that it’s the states, along with Congress in certain situations, that hold authority over election regulations, thus excluding the president and the Postal Service from having that power. However, USPS maintains that the new rule does not decide voter eligibility or cross-reference submissions with state voter rolls, meaning states keep control over mail-in voting eligibility.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, among the group of Democratic attorneys general who initiated the lawsuit, remarked, “This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections.”
This isn’t the first time Trump’s executive order faced challenges; the initial one from last year was obstructed on similar grounds because it sought to modify election procedures—it’s a bit ironic, given Trump’s frequent criticism of mail-in voting, which he wrongly attributes to his loss in the 2020 election against Joe Biden. Interestingly, Trump himself casts his vote by mail as a registered voter in Florida.
According to a report from the Brookings Institution, instances of fraud in mail-in voting were about four cases for every 10 million ballots cast, contradicting assertions from Trump and his supporters about rampant election fraud. This analysis spanned general elections from 2016 to 2022 and utilized a database described as lacking comprehensiveness.
Trump’s decision to issue the executive order targeting mail-in voting in March led to various legal challenges. In an earlier case this year, a federal judge in Washington opted not to block the order at that point, stating that the challenge was premature since there had been no implementation yet.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court rejected one of the stays against the order, leading to the removal of a second injunction shortly thereafter. The plaintiffs then refiled their challenges, citing the Postal Service’s publication of its final rule as a basis for strengthening their case.
