Judge Lifts Obstacle For Trump Mail Voting Order After Supreme Court Ruling
President Donald Trump’s effort to establish new federal safeguards for mail voting has returned to the Supreme Court less than two months before the November midterm elections.
The Trump administration asked the justices Thursday to allow the U.S. Postal Service to enforce a finalized rule requiring states to submit lists of approved mail-ballot recipients and place unique barcodes on outgoing and returned ballot envelopes.
Under the rule, USPS would deliver ballots only to voters appearing on the eligibility lists provided by state officials.
The emergency filing follows a rapidly shifting series of judicial decisions involving Trump’s March executive order on federal election administration.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Boston initially blocked portions of the order from taking effect in Democratic-led states. She later expanded the injunction, preventing the Postal Service from implementing the requirements nationwide.
The Supreme Court overturned the state-focused injunction in August, concluding that the lawsuit had been filed before USPS finalized the regulations explaining how the president’s directive would operate.
That decision was procedural. The justices did not determine whether Trump’s executive order or its mail-ballot requirements were constitutional.
Talwani subsequently lifted her earlier nationwide injunction in response to the Supreme Court ruling, temporarily clearing a path for the administration.
That opening proved brief.
After the Postal Service finalized its regulations, Democratic-led states and voting-rights organizations returned to federal court with renewed legal challenges.
On Aug. 27, Talwani issued another temporary order blocking key provisions of the completed USPS rule while the litigation proceeds.
The administration’s mail-ballot safeguards therefore remain suspended despite its earlier Supreme Court victory.
The Justice Department appealed Talwani’s latest order to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Before that court issued a decision, administration lawyers also filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to intervene once again.
The administration argues that the Postal Service possesses the legal authority to establish standards for handling election mail.
Government attorneys maintain that states would continue deciding which residents qualify to vote by mail. USPS would merely rely on those state-created eligibility lists when delivering ballots.
The administration has also rejected claims that implementing the rule close to Election Day would create widespread disruption, arguing that the Postal Service can coordinate with state officials to satisfy the requirements.
Opponents contend that the executive branch and USPS are attempting to impose federal controls over election procedures traditionally managed by the states.
Their lawsuits argue that the Postal Service lacks congressional authorization to refuse otherwise valid election mail based on the new federal requirements.
Talwani has expressed serious doubts about the policy’s legality. In an earlier ruling, she concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed in arguing that the administration had exceeded its lawful authority.
The rapidly approaching election has intensified the dispute.
North Carolina began sending mail ballots Friday, becoming the first state to do so for the Nov. 3 election, while additional states are preparing to follow throughout September. ([AP News][4])
Election officials have told the courts that ballot envelopes are already printed and voting systems have been configured, leaving little time to adopt the new federal procedures.
The online portal states would use to submit their eligibility lists was also reportedly not fully operational this week, although USPS said it was continuing to develop the system.
The finalized regulations originated with Trump’s March executive order directing the Postal Service to create standards for mail-ballot envelopes and require states to identify voters authorized to receive ballots by mail.
Trump has repeatedly argued that mail voting requires stronger protections and has made election integrity a major priority of his second term.
Opponents dispute the president’s concerns about the vulnerability of mail voting. They warn that administrative mistakes or inaccurate databases could prevent eligible Americans from receiving their ballots.
Another controversy arose after an anonymous Postal Service whistleblower alleged that USPS had rushed development of the computer system required to implement the rule.
The whistleblower claimed that unresolved technical problems could interfere with ballot distribution. USPS said it was reviewing the allegations while continuing to improve the system.
States are now confronting substantial uncertainty over which mail-voting procedures will apply in November.
The Supreme Court’s previous ruling removed one legal obstacle but explicitly allowed challengers to return after USPS adopted a concrete policy.
That has now occurred.
Unlike the earlier dispute over a policy that had not yet been completed, the administration’s latest application involves a finalized rule and more directly raises the fundamental question of whether the federal government can establish conditions for USPS handling of mail ballots.
For now, Talwani’s injunction remains in effect. The Postal Service cannot enforce the challenged safeguards unless the Supreme Court or another appellate court intervenes.