Federal judge rejects Trump request to lift block on mail-voting changes
Translated from Spanish and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.
At a glance
- Judge Indira Talwani rejected the Trump administration’s request to immediately lift a temporary order blocking contested mail-voting requirements.
- The restrictions affect ballot-envelope formats and voter information, and the block remains in place pending a Sept. 3 hearing.
- The case follows a lawsuit by 23 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania’s governor, alongside challenges from civil-rights groups.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has rejected the Trump administration’s request to lift a temporary block on new restrictions for voting by mail.
Judge Indira Talwani said the order could not be appealed immediately because she had already set an accelerated schedule. A hearing on whether the suspension should continue is scheduled for Sept. 3, leaving the block in effect for now.
The order prevents the U.S. Postal Service from imposing the disputed requirements, which concern the format of ballot envelopes and voter information. The challenge targets a final USPS regulation and an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March.
Trump’s order conditions the mailing of ballots on voters appearing on lists prepared in advance by federal agencies. It directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of U.S. citizens of voting age in all 50 states, while USPS must prepare another list of voters eligible to receive ballots by mail.
Twenty-three states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania’s governor filed a lawsuit against the measure. Civil-rights organizations have also challenged the order. The administration has justified the changes as a way to prevent electoral fraud, while analysts and experts cited in the report say cases of election fraud in the United States are insignificant.
Originally published by ABC Color in Spanish. 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.