Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Allow Mail Voting Limits
New York Times · LC · trust 61/100
The justices have been asked to weigh in again on the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict mail voting — this time on whether the plans violate the Constitution.
Listen · 6:03 min Share full article Administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for a new rule that prohibits the Postal Service from delivering ballots to voters in states that do not share voter data with the federal agency. Credit... Will Warasila for The New York Times By Abbie VanSickle
Administration lawyers asked the justices to clear the way for a new rule that prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from delivering ballots to voters in states that do not share voter data with the federal agency. The rule would also require the agency to review ballot envelopes for compliance with new standards before accepting it.
In the emergency filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that a lower court freeze on the plan would impose “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the states themselves, and the voting public.”
The emergency request to the Supreme Court is the second time in recent weeks that the court has been asked to weigh in on efforts by President Trump’s mail ballot plans. Previously, a majority of the court said a legal challenge was premature because the administration had not yet finalized its plans to restrict mail voting.
But the Postal Service published its plans in August in the days before the Supreme Court’s ruling, and a lower court judge has since blocked key parts of the plan from going into effect for the November election.
The administration’s emergency appeal to the justices came hours after a federal judge in Massachusetts, during a hearing in the matter, expressed concerns that the plans could cause so much chaos in the coming elections that states would experience “major disenfranchisement.” Judge Indira Talwani had imposed a temporary block on the plan, which the administration had already appealed.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Read the original at New York Times →
Open in TruthVane →