WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant election-integrity victory Monday, allowing his administration to proceed with key portions of an executive order aimed at tightening controls over mail-in ballots.
The court’s conservative majority voted 6-3 to lift a lower-court injunction that had blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order.
The decision allows the administration to continue implementing new mail-ballot procedures as states prepare for the November midterm elections. However, the justices did not issue a final ruling on whether every provision of Trump’s order is constitutional.
The majority instead concluded that the Democratic-led states challenging the order filed their lawsuit before the federal government had taken final action to implement the disputed policies.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful,” the unsigned order said. “On that score, time will tell.”
Trump signed Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of U.S. citizens residing in each state and provide those lists to state election officials before federal elections. It also directs federal authorities to prioritize investigations involving election officials who knowingly provide federal ballots to people who are not eligible to vote.
Another section orders the U.S. Postal Service to establish new requirements for federal mail ballots.
Those procedures include standardized election-mail markings, unique barcodes and lists identifying ballots issued by state and local governments. The administration says the changes are intended to improve tracking, confirm compliance and prevent ballots from being distributed outside established voter-registration systems.
Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration, arguing that the president was attempting to exercise election powers belonging to state legislatures and Congress.
A federal judge in Massachusetts agreed that the states were likely to succeed and temporarily blocked portions of the executive order.
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies were still developing their final rules.
The Supreme Court agreed with the administration on that procedural question. The court’s order is available here.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Jackson warned that allowing the administration to proceed so close to the election could disrupt voting systems and cause confusion for states, local election offices and voters.
Election officials are working under a tight deadline. Some states are preparing to send ballots to military personnel and Americans living overseas beginning in early September.
Critics say imposing new federal requirements weeks before voting begins could cause lawful ballots to be delayed or rejected because of technical errors.
Supporters argue that secure elections require accurate voter rolls, citizenship verification and a reliable system for tracking ballots moving through the mail.
The right to vote belongs to American citizens. Protecting that right means ensuring that eligible voters can cast their ballots without unnecessary barriers, but it also means establishing safeguards against ineligible voting, duplicate ballots and administrative failures.
Mail voting provides an important option for military families, senior citizens, disabled voters and Americans who cannot easily reach a polling place. That convenience does not eliminate the government’s responsibility to verify eligibility and protect the chain of custody.
A ballot is not ordinary mail. It is a legal instrument used to determine who holds government power.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not eliminate mail-in voting, nor does it give the president unlimited authority to rewrite state election laws. It removes one legal obstacle while the administration completes its rules and the broader litigation continues.
Additional lawsuits are expected once federal agencies begin enforcing specific provisions. Another existing court order may also prevent parts of the Postal Service’s plan from taking effect before November.
The constitutional question remains unresolved: How far may a president go in directing federal agencies to regulate mail-ballot procedures when the Constitution gives states and Congress primary authority over elections?
That issue could return to the Supreme Court.
For now, the ruling is a victory for Trump and his administration’s effort to strengthen federal oversight of mail ballots.
Democrats are calling it voter suppression. Republicans are calling it election security.
The American people should demand both access and accountability. Every eligible citizen should be able to vote, every lawful ballot should be counted and every election system should be secure enough to earn the public’s trust.
Original article
Comments