Feds vs. states mail-in voting fight comes to a head
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
The Supreme Court must decide whether to let the U.S. Postal Service overhaul states' mail-in voting systems this fall.
The big picture: The U.S. Postal Service's plans, which the Trump administration says are meant to curb voter fraud, have sparked legal battles by voting rights groups and state officials who say this would derail their elections and likely disenfranchise voters.
Catch up quick: The final rule, based on President Trump's executive order, requires states to send information about mail-in ballot recipients and their ballot-envelope barcodes through a USPS portal.
- USPS employees then use the portal data to verify that the ballot complies with the new rule.
- Under the rule, the agency can stop a ballot from being mailed to a voter if it doesn't comply, whether a state fails to send voter information altogether or an individual barcode fails verification (which one whistleblower claims could easily happen in error).
- The recently published rule prompted U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani to temporarily block it from taking effect, writing that it would make disenfranchisement "more than likely, if not probable."
State of play: The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to pause Talwani's ruling this week, the third request of its kind in under six weeks, per the SCOTUSblog.
- A coalition of former and current elected officials, including Massachusetts' congressional delegation, filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to block the mail-in voting overhaul.
Zoom in: The coalition argues that the framers of the U.S. Constitution "did not provide the president with any authority to interfere" with states' handling of federal elections unless Congress overrides the states.
- And, so far, Congress hasn't, the amicus brief states.
What they're saying: "It's an all-out assault on election integrity and a dangerous moment for our democracy that we must fight in the courts and, when necessary, in the streets," U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement to Axios.
The other side: "The district court's continuing prejudgment of the rule is baseless," U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his application to the Supreme Court.
- Sauer described the new rule as changes adding envelope design and addressee requirements to mail-in ballots, not an attempt to "federalize the rules for mail-in voting."
What we're watching: The Supreme Court faces a choice between leaving Talwani's order in place or letting the USPS impose the new rule less than eight weeks before Election Day — even if it doesn't rule on the overhaul's constitutionality.