Supreme Court won't clear way for Trump's mailed ballot rules - USA Today

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday, Sept. 14 declined to let the U.S. Postal Service tighten the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress.

The ruling was a loss for President Donald Trump who has challenged the security of mail-in ballots. He’s pushed for greater federal control of elections, which are administered by states − many of which said the changes can't be implemented in time. The administration had asked the court to suspend a judge's ruling that paused Trump's new role for the Postal Service.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in an opinion agreeing with the court’s finding wrote that allowing the Postal Service to make the changes Trump called for so soon before the midterm elections would be "arbitrary and capricious."

"Local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections," the Trump-nominated justice wrote.

The court ruled 7 to 2 against the Trump administration.  

Under the controversial order Trump signed in March, states must give lists of verified voters to the Postal Service and use a specific design for ballot envelopes that includes unique voter barcodes. The Postal Service can refuse to deliver ballots that don't meet the new rules.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston put the changes on hold, finding that they are probably unconstitutional and could be impossible to carry out in time for this year's elections.

"The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Talwani wrote. She also said the Postal Service is acting outside its authority from Congress.

Some states have already begun distributing absentee ballots.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court’s majority, saying that the justices decided not to let the Trump administration go forward with fighting against the lower court’s decision because the administration’s case "is unlikely to succeed on the merits."

Kavanaugh wrote an opinion concurring with the majority’s opinion for the reason that implementing Trump's rule on such short notice would be too difficult although he said the Postal Service generally has the authority to do what the president wanted.

Dissenting were Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

Alito wrote the opinion for the dissenting justices. He disagreed with Jackson, saying the Trump administration would likely succeed in their appeal, and he disagreed with Kavanaugh saying that while he understands implementing Trump’s rule changes will be challenging, "it is not enough to convince me to deny the application."

Voting by mail has decreased since its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic. But nearly 30% of voters still cast a ballot that way in the 2024 elections.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote by mail, according to the MIT Election Data & Science Lab.

The 23 blue and swing states challenging the order said allowing the changes to take effect before the midterms would be an "unmitigated disaster." Millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all, the states told the Supreme Court.

"USPS' unprecedented experiment with our Nation's most cherished franchise − the right to vote − is unlawful," the states said in a filing.

Voting rights groups and the Democratic Party have also sued to stop the new requirements.

The top election officials in seven GOP-controlled states told the Supreme Court that the work necessary to implement the changes “cannot be responsibly accomplished in the time that remains."

“Attempting to implement the Rule now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials,” the officials said in a filing submitted by more than three dozen current and former state and local election officials.

The American Postal Workers Union said the changes will “grind the operation of the postal system to a halt.”

The administration described the changes as "only modest envelope-designed and addressee-information requirements.”

"Those requirements are a straightforward exercise of the Postal Service's ordinary authority to adopt mail-preparation rules designed to ensure that mail (especially sensitive mail) is properly delivered to the intended recipient," the Justice Department told the Supreme Court.

While states have “primary authority” to regulate elections, the government said, “they cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service’s rulemaking authority.”

The Supreme Court’s decision came after the justices gave a procedural win to the administration on Aug. 24, ruling that the policy had been put on hold prematurely because the Postal Service had not finalized rules for how it would implement Trump’s order.

Talwani issued a new order after the Postal Service published its final rules.

The administration then took the rare step of asking the Supreme Court to weigh in before an appeals court had reviewed Talwani's decision.

When the Boston-based 1st U.S. Court of Appeals issued its ruling on Sept. 10, the court backed Talwani's order to keep the changes on hold.

The appeals court said the administration had not "seriously challenged" the judge's determination that there would be "chaos and widespread disenfranchisement" if the Postal Service moved forward.

"And moreover," the court said, "there is no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud related to the November 3 election."