President Donald Trump has formally requested that the United States Supreme Court overturn lower-court decisions blocking his executive order related to mail-in voting. This order, enacted in March and titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” aims to expand the roles of the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Postal Service (USPS) concerning mail-in ballots.
The executive directive would obligate states to use postal envelopes approved by the USPS, incorporating a distinctive Intelligent Mail barcode. Additionally, the order mandates that states notify the USPS at least 90 days before an election about their intention to mail ballots and submit a list of eligible voters 60 days ahead. The USPS would be barred from delivering ballots to individuals not on these lists.
A further provision would require the US Attorney General to focus on investigating and prosecuting state and local officials involved in unapproved voter ballot transactions. This move has prompted a legal battle, with 23 states suing to block the executive order on grounds that it breaches constitutional boundaries. They argue that the order infringes on state powers to regulate elections, a responsibility allocated to states under the Constitution, emphasizing the absence of presidential authority over election administration. More details about this legal move were reported here.
In June, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sided with these states. Judge Indira Talwani noted significant logistical and financial commitments made by states in anticipation of the fall elections, including Massachusetts’ expenditure of $3 million on envelopes slated for mail-in ballots. The court highlighted the additional staffing and resource requirements imposed by the executive order.
Trump’s administration contended in its appeal that the lawsuit from the states is premature, given that the executive order has not yet been implemented. Meanwhile, other legal challenges are unfolding, such as one initiated by the Democratic National Committee in April. Coverage on the broader implications of this legal tussle can be explored here.