Trump Administration Appeals Ruling Halting Mail-In Voting Rules
New York Times · LC · trust 67/100
The Postal Service appealed an emergency decision from Thursday that blocked it from changing its procedures for mail-in voting ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
Listen · 2:02 min Share full article Workers sorted through ballots at a ballot processing facility in California last November. Credit... Philip Cheung for The New York Times By Zach Montague
The issue will likely be settled by the Supreme Court.
The administration’s appeal came less than a day after a federal judge in Massachusetts found that a Postal Service rule published last week was likely unconstitutional and exceeded the agency’s authority. Under the rule, the Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots in states that do not share voter data with the agency, and would only deliver ballots that meet certain criteria.
The Supreme Court has considered the issue once already, finding that it was too soon for litigants to challenge an executive order issued by Mr. Trump in March because the Postal Service had not yet taken steps to carry it out.
But after the Postal Service published its plan last week, more than 20 Democratic state attorneys general and a coalition of voting nonprofits and organizations returned to court with a more concrete challenge.
The Trump administration had argued that the Postal Service plan would not give the agency an overly intrusive role scrutinizing voters or regulating election mail.
“The Postal Service will not determine voter eligibility, ballot content, mailing or receipt deadlines, or ballot-counting procedures,” the agency said in a filing.
In a ruling on Thursday, Judge Indira Talwani of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that while the Supreme Court had previously said the issue was not ripe, the justices had also concluded that it was not yet clear if the administration’s plan was lawful. She wrote that it was likely not.
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.
Read the original at New York Times →
Open in TruthVane →