Judge Considers Blocking USPS Ballot Portal That Threatens Voter Access Ahead of Midterms
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A federal judge is weighing whether to extend an order preventing the Postal Service from imposing a new online ballot tracking portal, a move that could disenfranchise voters and burden states just before the November elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani pressed Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik on the readiness of a Postal Service system that would force states to use an online portal to track mail ballots—a system pushed by the White House last spring without proper safeguards for voters. The portal would demand states upload sensitive voter lists and match them to ballot envelopes, with any mismatches potentially resulting in ballots being withheld from delivery, raising serious concerns about voter suppression and privacy.
Talwani noted the lack of any official confirmation from the Postal Service that the system is even functional, labeling the plan an "experiment" on the eve of a crucial election. Velchik insisted the Postal Service aimed to fully enforce the rule published last month, but the real legal question, he argued, was whether the judge could stop it, asking, "The $64,000 question is, is this authorized by the statute?"
The judge is now considering whether to extend a temporary restraining order blocking the Postal Service from enforcing the portal requirement through September 10. North Carolina is set to begin mailing ballots on Friday, with other states soon to follow. Velchik threatened that the administration could attempt to bypass the lower courts by seeking Supreme Court intervention to push through the plan.
Back in June, Talwani issued a 14-day injunction halting the executive order, citing the proximity to the election and the risk of chaos. The Supreme Court later called the injunction premature since the Postal Service hadn’t yet issued detailed regulations; those were published only at the last minute, prompting voting-rights groups to file new lawsuits to protect voters.
Election officials have warned that the new directives would force them to overhaul their operations, including redesigning envelopes and uploading voter data to the portal—an enormous burden with little time to prepare. As of the hearing, not a single state had agreed to participate, and the portal remained inactive, underscoring the lack of support for this top-down federal mandate.
Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi, representing states backing the program, dismissed concerns about disenfranchisement, but a recent whistleblower report revealed that requiring all ballots to be physically brought to post offices could lead to mass ballot rejection over minor barcode errors—another blow to voting rights.
As the nation nears the midterm elections, the court’s decision will determine whether millions of Americans can safely and securely vote by mail, or if bureaucratic overreach will undermine democracy and silence voters’ voices.