States tell Supreme Court new USPS mail-ballot rules would create chaos
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.
California and 23 other states, joined by the District of Columbia, urged the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s appeal to reinstate postal service rules that could disrupt mail voting in the November election.
California, 23 other states and the District of Columbia filed an emergency brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, warning that the Postal Service’s newly proposed mail-ballot requirements would be impossible to meet before the November election and could disenfranchise millions of voters. The coalition argued that states would be unable to match voter lists to the Postal Service’s barcode-based envelopes, and that the rule would force the agency to reject ballots that did not align with those lists.
The states cited objections from election officials in several conservative states, including Utah’s lieutenant governor, who described the plan as “an unmitigated disaster.” Similar concerns were raised by officials in Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. The brief noted that some states, such as North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun mailing ballots, and that the August 21 deadline for compliance leaves no realistic window for implementation.
The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to overturn a district court injunction that halted the rule nationwide. Solicitor General John D. Sauer argued that the rule merely imposes “reasonable preparation requirements” and does not dictate ballot content or counting procedures, asserting that rejecting the rule would cause “serious irreparable harm” by undermining efforts to prevent voter fraud.
Election law experts, including Rick Hasen of UCLA Law, countered that the administration offered no evidence of widespread mail-in fraud and that the claims of harm were speculative. They highlighted a whistleblower’s allegation that the Postal Service’s online verification system is “fundamentally flawed” and could reject thousands of ballots due to technical errors. The experts warned that the rule threatens elderly, disabled, military and other vulnerable voters who rely on mail voting.
A federal judge previously granted a preliminary injunction blocking the rule, and the Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision quickly given the emergency nature of the appeal.