Featured Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
The Supreme Court lifted lower-court restrictions that had blocked key portions of President Donald Trump’s election order in 23 states and Washington, D.C., allowing the administration and U.S. Postal Service to proceed with contested mail-ballot requirements while litigation over the president’s constitutional authority continues.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday removed a significant legal barrier preventing the Trump administration from implementing portions of President Donald Trump’s plan to tighten federal requirements surrounding mail-in voting, giving federal agencies greater freedom to move forward as states prepare for the November midterm elections.
The justices lifted a lower-court restriction that had prevented enforcement of contested provisions in 23 states and Washington, D.C., according to Reuters.
The action gives the administration an immediate procedural victory, but it does not amount to a final Supreme Court determination that Trump’s election order is constitutional. Litigation over the president’s authority to impose the requirements remains underway.
At issue is an executive order Trump signed March 31 directing federal agencies to develop new procedures affecting voter eligibility and the handling of mail and absentee ballots.
The order instructed the Department of Homeland Security to compile information concerning U.S. citizens eligible to participate in federal elections. It separately directed the U.S. Postal Service to establish requirements governing the distribution and processing of mail ballots.
The Trump administration has characterized the initiative as an election-integrity measure intended to ensure that ballots are distributed and delivered only to eligible voters and that federal agencies use existing legal authorities to protect election systems.
Democratic-led states challenged the order, arguing that the president was attempting to impose federal voting rules that the Constitution leaves primarily to states and Congress.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed with significant portions of that argument in June and blocked key elements of Trump’s directive.
Among the provisions halted by Talwani were plans involving a federal citizenship database and requirements for states to provide the Postal Service with lists identifying voters authorized to receive mail ballots.
Talwani concluded that the states had legal standing to bring their challenge and found key portions of the executive order unconstitutional, according to Reuters.
The administration appealed and argued that the lawsuit had been brought too early.
Justice Department attorneys maintained that federal agencies had not yet completed the rules, procedures and other steps necessary to carry out Trump’s order and said courts should not prohibit policies before agencies had determined precisely how they would operate.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined in July to suspend Talwani’s injunction, leaving the disputed requirements blocked across the 23 states involved in the lawsuit as well as Washington, D.C.
That prompted the Justice Department to seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.
Administration lawyers argued before the justices that the lower courts had prematurely interfered with executive-branch activity by preventing agencies from developing policies that might ultimately fall within powers already granted to them under federal law.
The states took the opposite position, telling the courts that the executive order was already forcing election officials to prepare for potentially substantial changes as the midterms approached.
They argued that waiting until federal agencies finished implementing the directive would leave states insufficient time to challenge requirements they believe exceed presidential authority.
The legal dispute intensified again on Aug. 11 when Talwani issued another order specifically targeting the Postal Service.
That ruling blocked USPS nationwide from implementing a major portion of Trump’s directive involving lists of voters receiving absentee or mail ballots.
According to Reuters, Talwani’s order prevented the Postal Service from requiring states to submit those voter lists and from refusing to deliver ballots to individuals whose names did not appear on them.
The administration again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, warning that the nationwide restriction could prevent federal agencies from putting the president’s policies into effect before November.
Meanwhile, the Postal Service has continued preparing the regulatory framework contemplated under Trump’s order.
USPS finalized a 95-page rule establishing new requirements for mail ballots, according to Reuters.
The rule would require states to provide lists identifying voters receiving mail ballots and would establish a requirement for unique barcodes on ballot envelopes.
Under the plan, the Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots originating from states that do not comply with the new standards.
USPS has said the changes would increase election security and improve its ability to authenticate and track mail ballots.
Implementation had remained stalled because of the federal injunction.
Monday’s Supreme Court action changes the immediate legal landscape by allowing the administration to proceed while the broader case moves through the courts.
The approaching election calendar has been central to the dispute.
States are already preparing voting systems, printing materials, coordinating with election officials and making administrative decisions ahead of the November congressional elections, which will determine control of the House and Senate.
The 1st Circuit noted in July that states faced approaching deadlines contained in Trump’s executive order and could not simply postpone preparations until all litigation had concluded, according to Reuters.
That timing has made the case more consequential than an abstract disagreement over presidential powers.
If the federal requirements are implemented before November, states could be required to modify how they coordinate with USPS regarding absentee and mail ballots only months before voters begin casting them.
Trump has made changes to mail voting a central component of his broader election agenda.
He has repeatedly criticized widespread use of mail ballots and called for substantially tighter restrictions, including at times advocating an end to mail voting nationwide.
The president has also urged Congress to enact the SAVE America Act, described as a broader package of election-related restrictions.
Opponents of Trump’s approach contend that Article I of the Constitution assigns primary responsibility for determining the times, places and manner of congressional elections to state legislatures, subject to changes enacted by Congress.
They argue that the president cannot independently rewrite those rules through executive action.
The Justice Department maintains that Trump’s order does not improperly take over state election administration but instead instructs federal agencies to enforce existing election laws and exercise powers Congress has already provided.
Those competing interpretations remain unresolved.
Monday’s Supreme Court action determines which rules can move forward while the litigation continues; it does not settle whether Trump ultimately has constitutional or statutory authority to impose all of the contested requirements.
The decision nevertheless gives the administration an important opportunity to advance its election policies before the November midterms.
Attention will now turn to how quickly the Department of Homeland Security and Postal Service act, what requirements they attempt to put into operation and whether the states return to court seeking additional relief as those policies take shape.
The dispute could eventually require the Supreme Court to directly address the larger constitutional question at the center of the case: how far presidential authority extends when the executive branch seeks to regulate procedures affecting federal elections without new legislation from Congress.
Original article
Comments