A second federal judge has halted President Trump’s effort to have the U.S. Postal Service police mailed ballots, potentially leaving the fate of the rule to the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rule, finding it exceeded the Postal Service’s authority and could disenfranchise voters. The rule would have required states to submit lists of eligible voters to the USPS and use unique barcodes on ballots, empowering the Postal Service to refuse delivery of ballots not meeting those standards.
Judge Nichols, appointed by Trump, wrote that “no statute grants the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of the rule.” This decision follows a similar block issued September 4 by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to pause that order. The Democratic Party argued the rule was an unlawful intrusion into election administration, reserved for states with congressional oversight, and risked disenfranchising eligible voters. They cited the Constitution as assigning election administration to states, not the president or federal agencies.
Justice Department lawyers representing the administration maintained the USPS was not attempting to “seize control” of federal election administration, and states would retain control over voter eligibility. They argued the rule would not displace existing state election laws or prevent anyone from voting by mail. All 50 states currently allow some form of mail-in voting, with 29 allowing it without requiring a reason and eight conducting elections entirely by mail. The decision comes as Republicans battle to retain control of Congress in the November 3 midterms, and Trump continues to falsely claim widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Neither the Justice Department nor the Postal Service immediately responded to requests for comment.
Our reading is that this second injunction highlights a pattern of legal challenges to the administration’s attempts to influence election procedures. The fact that a judge appointed by the President himself issued the ruling suggests the legal arguments against the rule have some merit, despite the administration’s stated intentions. The repeated resort to the Supreme Court indicates a strategy of seeking resolution through the highest court, potentially bypassing lower court rulings.
Read the original coverage
💬 Comments
📜 Comment Policy