DistantNews
Support us
๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ญ Switzerland /Crime & Justice

Donald Trump Again Asks Supreme Court to Restrict Mail-In Voting

From Le Temps · () French

Translated from French and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore an executive order requiring a federal voter-eligibility list for mail-in ballots.
  • The legal dispute has intensified before some states begin sending mail-in ballots for midterm elections in two months.
  • A federal judge called the policy practically impossible to implement on time and likely unconstitutional, while government lawyer John Sauer disputed that assessment.

Donald Trump has returned to the Supreme Court in an effort to revive his restrictions on mail-in voting, with the U.S. midterm elections only two months away. The move comes as some states prepare to send the first mail-in ballots to voters.

impossible in practice

· Federal judgeThe judge assessed whether states could comply with the executive order before the midterm elections.

Trumpโ€™s executive order directs immigration and Social Security agencies to create a federal list of voters eligible to cast ballots. It also instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on that list. Trump has repeatedly attacked mail voting and continues to cite it as a main reason for his unrecognised defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

The order, signed on March 31, faces legal challenges from a group of Democratic-governed states and a votersโ€™ organisation. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed it to take effect on Aug. 24, without ruling on its substance. The conservative majority said suspending the order had been premature because the Postal Service had not yet issued implementation rules.

probably contrary to the Constitution

· Federal judgeThe judgeโ€™s ruling questioned the legality of Trumpโ€™s mail-voting restrictions.

A judge suspended the order again on Aug. 27 after those rules appeared. She said it would be โ€œimpossible in practiceโ€ for states, which run federal elections, to comply in time for the midterms. She also found the order โ€œprobably contrary to the Constitution.โ€ Government lawyer John Sauer challenged that reasoning, arguing that the Postal Service rules impose only modest requirements involving envelopes and recipient information. A whistleblower has warned that the new computer system could prevent millions of Americans from voting.

Unlike the claims by the court and the opposing party that the Postal Service would try to federalize mail-voting rules, the rules adopted impose only modest requirements

· John SauerThe governmentโ€™s legal argument to the Supreme Court defended the Postal Serviceโ€™s implementation rules.
About this summary

Originally published by Le Temps in French. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.