A federal judge in Boston is considering whether to extend a temporary injunction against new U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots after questioning whether the system is operational and whether states can realistically comply before the November midterm elections.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge in Boston is weighing whether to keep key portions of the Trump administration’s new mail-ballot rules on hold as states prepare to begin sending ballots for the November midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani heard arguments Thursday from Justice Department attorneys and lawyers representing 24 states and the District of Columbia, which are challenging requirements recently imposed by the U.S. Postal Service.
Talwani did not issue an immediate ruling.
During the hearing, the judge questioned whether the Postal Service’s new system is ready to operate and how election officials would be expected to comply with the requirements on such a compressed timetable, according to CBS News.
A Justice Department attorney representing the administration was unable to tell Talwani whether the Postal Service’s online portal for processing information about mail-ballot recipients was fully operational.
That uncertainty has become a central issue because states are already approaching statutory deadlines for distributing ballots.
North Carolina is scheduled to begin sending ballots to military and overseas voters Friday, while additional states are expected to start mailing ballots later this month, according to CBS News.
A whistleblower has separately raised concerns about whether the Postal Service can implement the new system without technical problems that could disrupt mail-ballot processing.
CBS News reported on those allegations, which have not been independently established and have not been adopted as fact by the Postal Service.
Talwani temporarily blocked major portions of the Postal Service rule last week through a 14-day order while considering whether the restrictions should remain in place for a longer period.
In that ruling, she said the states were likely to succeed in showing that the Postal Service did not have the legal authority to impose the requirements and that compliance before the 2026 election could be practically impossible, according to CBS News.
The Justice Department has appealed the temporary injunction to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is seeking permission for the Postal Service to proceed with the rules while litigation continues.
The challenged rule requires states to transmit the names and addresses of intended mail-ballot recipients through an online portal.
It also requires ballot envelopes to contain individualized bar codes and other information intended to allow ballots to be tracked through the mail system.
The Postal Service has said the requirements are meant to improve the security and reliability of election mail.
The 24 states and the District of Columbia challenging the rule argue that the federal government is improperly asserting authority over election procedures that have traditionally been administered primarily by state governments.
They also contend that requiring election officials to redesign established mail-voting procedures shortly before ballots are distributed could create practical problems and disrupt existing election systems.
The Postal Service requirements stem from a broader election-integrity initiative launched by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
In March, Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-specific lists of adult U.S. citizens, instructing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations of alleged federal election-law violations and ordering the Postal Service to develop new standards for absentee and mail-in voting.
The administration has said those steps are intended to ensure that federal ballots are issued only to eligible voters and to strengthen safeguards surrounding election administration.
Trump has repeatedly argued that stronger controls over mail voting are necessary to protect election integrity.
Opponents contend that documented instances of election fraud do not justify expanding federal authority over procedures traditionally controlled by the states.
The March executive order itself became the subject of litigation before the Postal Service finalized the rules now being challenged.
Last month, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed after concluding that an earlier lawsuit challenging the executive order had been filed prematurely.
The justices did not decide whether the administration’s underlying election policies were lawful.
Once the Postal Service formally issued its final rule, the states filed a new challenge based on the concrete requirements imposed on election administrators.
The dispute is one part of a broader Trump administration effort to increase federal scrutiny of election procedures.
Other initiatives have included attempts to obtain state voter-registration information and verify the citizenship status of people appearing on voter rolls.
Thursday’s hearing placed the immediate focus on whether the new Postal Service requirements can legally and practically be implemented before voting begins.
Talwani must now decide whether the current temporary block should remain in place while the case proceeds.
Whatever her ruling, the Justice Department’s appeal and the broader constitutional questions surrounding federal and state authority over elections make further litigation likely, potentially leaving election officials with continued uncertainty over the rules governing mail ballots as the November midterms approach.
Original article
Comments