Election workers prepare mail-in ballots for tallying at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on November 4, 2024, in City of Industry, California.
AFP via Getty Images
Topline
A judge appointed by President Trump issued a temporary block on the U.S. Postal Service’s new mail-in ballot regulation on Sunday night. This marks the second federal injunction against the policy, which remains in legal limbo as the Supreme Court prepares to issue a definitive ruling that could affect millions of voters.
Key Facts
In August, the Postal Service finalized a new regulation stemming from President Donald Trump’s March executive order, which restricts mail-in voting by requiring states to meet new federal reporting standards before ballots are mailed. The policy has experienced a turbulent legal journey: Judge Indira Talwani blocked it on September 4, and Judge Carl Nichols issued a similar ruling on Sunday night. However, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the rule’s fate.
Under the mandate, state and local election officials must submit voters’ names and addresses to a new USPS portal; only those whose data is approved will receive ballots enclosed in envelopes featuring special federal barcodes. While the rule does not require voters to take extra steps, voting rights advocates argue it creates administrative hurdles that could lead to disenfranchisement. An anonymous whistleblower corroborated these concerns, informing Congress that the rule was hastily implemented and could cause large batches of ballots to be rejected and returned to election officials.
Since the rule is not currently in effect, its impact remains uncertain. States such as North Carolina, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Delaware have already begun mailing ballots and may be unaffected. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court that ballots sent during the block will not be subject to the new policy, but warned that if the rule is enacted, states might lack the necessary compliance steps, “potentially depriving those States’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail.”
What to Watch for
The injunctions issued by Judges Talwani and Nichols indefinitely block the USPS rule pending ongoing litigation. The Trump administration is petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Talwani’s ruling and allow the policy to proceed, with justices potentially intervening at any moment. Should the Supreme Court authorize the rule’s implementation, Judge Nichols would also need to lift his own blocking order, as his ruling stems from a separate lawsuit. Nichols would likely be compelled to align with the Supreme Court’s directive and overturn his own order, as Talwani did in a previous phase of the case, even if he personally deems the rule unlawful.
What Does The New Rule Say?
The regulation mandates that states submit lists of voters requesting mail-in ballots to the USPS prior to an election, ensuring only those whose information has been registered can receive ballots. It also requires new envelope designs and barcodes to verify that ballots have cleared the federal system. Eligibility to vote by mail remains determined by states and is unaffected by the rule. The USPS stated it will merely process the data provided by election officials without verifying voter eligibility.
Election officials must supply the federal government with a voter’s name, address, state, and associated barcodes. The federal government will retain this information and eventually provide state election officials with a comprehensive list of every voter name and address received. Ballots that fail to comply with federal requirements will be returned to election officials by postal workers and will not be delivered.
What Happens To Ballots That Have Already Been Sent Out?
Ballots already sent to voters while court orders are in effect will proceed normally without needing federal database clearance. The Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court that even if the rule is reinstated later, it would be “too late” to affect dispatched ballots, stating, “Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them.” Despite the ongoing litigation, North Carolina commenced mailing ballots on Friday.
What Happens If The Rule Takes Effect As Ballots Are Being Mailed?
Enacting the rule while ballots are already in transit and states are unprepared could cause significant disruption. Although states can voluntarily prepare for the rule while it is blocked—such as by registering for the new database or approving envelope designs—the Trump administration informed Judge Talwani that no states have opted into the system yet. The federal government warned the Supreme Court that if the rule takes effect, states might lack the readiness to comply with the new federal system, resulting in delayed or undelivered ballots.
What Did The Whistleblower Say?
In their report to Senator Blumenthal, the whistleblower’s attorneys described the rollout as a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” with a high “opportunity for error,” warning of a potential “catastrophic failure which could derail the midterm elections.” The primary concern centers on a new system using special barcodes to prove ballots cleared the federal database. Allegedly, USPS is enforcing a “zero percent fail rate” policy, meaning if a single barcode in a batch fails to scan, the entire batch is invalidated and returned to election officials.
The whistleblower’s attorneys noted that even under normal circumstances, a “zero-percent failure rate” policy is problematic due to predictable scanning errors, and expressed concern that the portal storing the barcodes will likely suffer significant operating problems due to rushed IT development. They also alleged that IT work was performed while the rule was blocked, potentially violating the court order. In response, USPS stated it is “carefully reviewing” the concerns and argued that its portal development has been conducted in a manner consistent with court orders.
What Do Voters Have To Know?
Voters will not need to alter their behavior if the rule takes effect; state and local election officials will continue to request and send out ballots as before, and states will still determine voter eligibility. However, the new system of registering voter information with the USPS could cause administrative issues and delays, so voters should remain informed. (USPS has argued the rule “does not—nor is it intended to—facilitate any form of voter suppression, affect election outcomes, or target particular demographics, districts, or states.”)
Ballots could get delayed: Voters’ ballots could face significant delays if the rule takes effect, due to the last-minute nature of potential orders and the whistleblower’s warnings about rejected batches. Judge Talwani also highlighted that election officials lack the time and funds to design new ballots, seek design approvals, order production, update election management systems, train staff, and upload citizen data before the midterms. Consequently, voters might receive ballots late due to implementation delays. Election officials cautioned the Supreme Court that creating barcodes could be especially difficult in rural communities with fewer resources, leading to disproportionate delays in those areas.
Register for mail ballots early: Given these potential delays, voters should request mail-in ballots as early as possible. While the USPS rule requires election officials to submit voter information to the federal portal at least 30 days before Election Day, officials can continue submitting data until the last day ballots are mailed. However, registering at the last minute increases the risk of not receiving a ballot on time due to barcode or processing issues. For voters in states that mail ballots early, requesting a ballot sooner could ensure it is sent while the rule remains blocked, exempting it from the new system entirely.
Some groups are more at risk: Voting rights advocates have argued in court filings that groups heavily reliant on mail-in voting, such as senior citizens and disabled individuals, face an elevated risk of disenfranchisement due to potential administrative hurdles. While USPS and the Trump administration maintain that postal officials will not verify voter eligibility, advocates also fear that individuals improperly registered in government databases as citizens—such as those who recently obtained citizenship—could encounter issues.
Exemptions: The reporting requirements do not apply to U.S. military and overseas voters mailing ballots from outside the country, and they are limited to general elections, excluding primary elections.
What We Don’t Know
It remains unknown whether any states will decline to participate in the new system if it takes effect. While no states or localities have indicated they will do so, such a decision would prevent voters in those areas from submitting ballots via USPS, forcing them to rely on alternative methods like in-person voting or ballot drop boxes.
Why Have There Been So Many Conflicting Rulings In This Case?
The legal saga of the USPS rule has been characterized by frequent judicial reversals, as the policy was initially blocked, allowed to take effect, and subsequently blocked again. Lower court judges initially issued rulings blocking the policy in June and August, but the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on August 24 to allow the rule to proceed, determining the lawsuit was premature since the rule had not yet been finalized. Liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson arguing the majority “misses the Government’s actual objective: to secure our [approval] for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.”
The rule officially took effect the day after the Supreme Court’s order when Talwani lifted her block. However, the finalization of the rule on August 21 altered the legal landscape, as the Supreme Court’s argument regarding the premature nature of the challenge no longer applied. Consequently, Democratic attorneys general and voting rights groups updated their complaints to challenge the finalized rule. Talwani issued a new temporary block, ruling that USPS’s arguments for the policy were “dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots.” She extended the block, sending the matter to the Supreme Court. Following her order, a federal appeals court also ruled against the policy, and Judge Nichols blocked it in a separate lawsuit brought by voter advocacy groups. The Trump-appointed judge argued that USPS lacked the authority to impose the rule, noting that “the extremely short timeframe between issuance of the Final Rule and the midterm elections cuts strongly in favor of” keeping it on hold.
Key Background
The executive order directing the USPS to restrict mail-in ballots stems from the president’s long-standing attacks on mail-in voting, where he falsely claims it is more susceptible to fraud—despite regularly voting by mail himself. This controversy follows the 2020 election, when former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy implemented widely criticized changes that caused mail delays. Accusations arose that DeJoy, a Trump ally, intentionally sought to stymie mail-in voting, which he and the USPS denied. DeJoy’s changes were eventually reversed following court challenges, and USPS took “extraordinary measures” to ensure timely delivery. DeJoy has since been replaced by David Steiner, a former FedEx board member reportedly installed at Trump’s urging. Steiner has stated he will follow Trump’s directives on mail-in voting but will defer to the courts on legal challenges.
