States Resist Trump’s Suppressive USPS Ballot Rules to Protect Democracy
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, 23 other states, and the District of Columbia urge the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s dangerous attempt to reinstate USPS rules that threaten to disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly the most vulnerable.
California, 23 other states, and the District of Columbia filed an emergency brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, sounding the alarm against the Postal Service’s newly proposed mail-ballot requirements. These requirements, pushed by the Trump administration, are not only impossible to meet before the November election but are a blatant attempt to suppress the votes of millions, especially marginalized communities. The coalition emphasized that states would be unable to match voter lists to the Postal Service’s barcode-based envelopes, a bureaucratic hurdle designed to fail, and that the rule would force the agency to reject ballots that did not align with those lists, effectively silencing countless voices.
Even election officials in conservative states, such as Utah’s lieutenant governor, condemned the plan as “an unmitigated disaster.” Officials in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin echoed similar concerns, underscoring the bipartisan recognition of the rule’s chaos. The brief highlighted that states like North Carolina and Wisconsin have already begun mailing ballots, and with the August 21 deadline for compliance, there is no realistic way to implement these draconian measures without mass disenfranchisement.
The Trump administration, undeterred by the risk to democracy, filed an emergency appeal to overturn a district court injunction that had blocked the rule nationwide. Solicitor General John D. Sauer attempted to downplay the impact, claiming the rule merely imposes “reasonable preparation requirements” and does not dictate ballot content or counting procedures. He argued that rejecting the rule would cause “serious irreparable harm” by undermining efforts to prevent so-called voter fraud—a claim repeatedly debunked and used as a pretext for voter suppression.
Election law experts, including Rick Hasen of UCLA Law, refuted the administration’s baseless claims, pointing out the lack of evidence for widespread mail-in fraud and noting that the supposed harms were purely speculative. They drew attention to a whistleblower’s allegation that the Postal Service’s online verification system is “fundamentally flawed,” risking the rejection of thousands of legitimate ballots due to technical errors. The experts warned that the rule disproportionately threatens elderly, disabled, military, and other vulnerable voters who depend on mail voting to participate in democracy.
A federal judge had previously granted a preliminary injunction blocking the rule, and the Supreme Court is now poised to decide whether to stand with democracy or enable a cynical attack on voting rights.