States Sue USPS: Mail-In Voting Rule Challenged as Election Interference

• Two dozen states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit to block a new U.S. Postal Service rule that tightens mail-in voting regulations.
• The states argue that the USPS rule, derived from a Trump executive order, unlawfully infringes upon their constitutional authority to manage elections.
• This legal challenge follows a Supreme Court ruling that dismissed an earlier attempt to block the executive order, citing a lack of immediate harm to the states.
• States report that the new rule is already causing significant financial strain and logistical difficulties, including the need for immediate ballot redesigns and new voter verification systems.
• The White House has praised the Supreme Court's prior decision as a victory for election security, while a dissenting justice raised concerns about its implications.

The states contend that this federal directive unlawfully interferes with their inherent authority to administer elections, a power explicitly reserved for state governments.

A coalition comprising two dozen states and the District of Columbia has initiated legal proceedings to contest a new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) regulation that imposes stricter requirements on mail-in voting. The lawsuit, filed on a Wednesday in a Massachusetts federal court, seeks to block the implementation of this rule just months before the upcoming November midterm election. The states contend that this federal directive unlawfully interferes with their inherent authority to administer elections, a power explicitly reserved for state governments. They argue that Congress has not granted the USPS any power to establish rules for federal elections or the process of mail voting, despite Americans having utilized mail ballots for generations. This legal action represents a significant challenge to federal election administration. The contested USPS rule stems from a March 31 executive order issued by former President Donald Trump, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” This order mandates the creation of lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and directs the USPS to deliver mail ballots exclusively to these verified voters. The states' 53-page lawsuit underscores their position that this rule oversteps federal boundaries.

This new legal offensive follows closely on the heels of a Supreme Court decision rendered on the preceding Monday, which effectively dismissed an earlier challenge to President Trump’s executive order. In an unsigned order, the high court's 6-3 conservative supermajority indicated that the former president was likely to prevail in his argument that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to block the order's enforcement, primarily because it had not yet taken effect, meaning the states had not yet suffered demonstrable harm. In light of this Supreme Court ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, was compelled to vacate a preliminary injunction she had previously issued. Judge Talwani had earlier declared the USPS rule unconstitutional and her injunction had barred the Department of Homeland Security from compiling citizenship lists for approximately half the states in the nation. Despite being forced to rule against the plaintiffs, Judge Talwani granted the states, which had joined forces with the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and other voting rights organizations in the prior proceeding, the opportunity to refile their case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, notably dissented from the Supreme Court's decision, writing that the ruling “lets another sho” (sic), indicating her disagreement with the majority's stance on jurisdiction and harm.

The states assert that the new USPS rule is already imposing substantial financial costs and creating significant logistical hurdles for their election systems. They report being forced to immediately redesign ballot envelopes, submit them for review by the USPS, and rapidly develop new systems to provide voter lists to the postal service, all while ensuring that every eligible voter receives their mail ballot. Beyond these immediate changes, states must also formulate new guidance for election officials, conduct extensive training, and undertake public education campaigns to inform citizens about the revised mail-in voting procedures. Furthermore, they anticipate an influx of in-person voters who might typically vote by mail but may choose not to due to these last-minute changes. The states describe these tasks as “Herculean,” requiring completion within weeks with limited resources, highlighting the mail-in ballot redesign legal implications and broader operational challenges.

The White House has publicly lauded the Supreme Court's recent decision, with Lauren Bis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, characterizing it as a “major win for the security of American elections.” Bis criticized opposition from Democrat-led states, stating that “Radical Democrats continue to oppose commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders.” Bis further affirmed, via email, that the Trump administration remains committed to lawfully implementing the agenda on which President Trump was elected, which includes safeguarding the safety and security of American elections. This political commentary underscores the contentious nature of the USPS citizenship verification voting lawsuit and the ongoing debate surrounding election integrity and federal election administration.

Lawyers advising state election commissions or political campaigns should monitor this lawsuit closely, as its outcome will determine the legality and operational requirements for mail-in voting procedures, potentially necessitating significant changes to ballot design, voter verification, and election administration logistics for upcoming elections.

Source: Original reporting via The Courthouse News Service