DistantNews
Support us
🇦🇷 Argentina /Crime & Justice

Trump administration again asks Supreme Court to allow mail-in voting restrictions

From Clarín · () Spanish

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

At a glance

Newswire Named sources In the courts
  • The Trump administration again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal judge’s order blocking new restrictions on mail-in voting.
  • The administration warned that ballots were already being mailed in North Carolina and would soon be sent in other states, creating pressure for a quick ruling.
  • Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups call the changes unconstitutional, while election officials say they lack time to adapt their systems.

The Trump administration has returned to the Supreme Court for the third time, seeking permission to enforce new restrictions on mail-in voting before November’s midterm elections. The request followed a federal judge’s decision to extend an order barring the Postal Service from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order.

The legal fight is unfolding as states begin mailing ballots. North Carolina has already started sending them, Alabama is scheduled to begin on September 9, and at least five other states are expected to start during the week of September 13, Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the filing.

Already, mail ballots have begun going out in North Carolina, and more states will begin the mailing process while the district court’s order remains in effect, including Alabama on September 9 and at least five states in the week of September 13.

· John SauerThe solicitor general cited the mailing schedule to argue that the Supreme Court must act quickly.

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mail stream, there is no way to retrieve them,” Sauer wrote. He argued that the existing court order could create confusion because it makes preparatory steps voluntary rather than mandatory. The administration asked for an immediate administrative stay, followed by a full stay while the Supreme Court conducts further review.

Once those ballot envelopes enter the mail stream, there is no way to retrieve them.

· John SauerSauer argued that the timing of the court dispute could make later changes to voting procedures difficult.

The Supreme Court has allowed the plan to move forward procedurally but has not ruled on whether it is legal. The dispute could affect elections in which control of Congress is at stake. Nearly one-third of U.S. voters cast ballots by mail, according to the article.

Democratic-led states and voting-rights organizations argue that the changes are unconstitutional. Election officials say they do not have enough time to revise their systems to meet the Postal Service’s new requirements. The administration calls the restrictions common-sense changes within its authority to regulate the mail. It also says state law will continue to determine eligibility for mail-in and absentee voting, while state and local officials will decide which voters and ballots qualify.

In short, the best way to address respondents’ concerns about their inability to comply with the rule is to grant an immediate administrative stay of the order, followed by a full stay pending further review.

· John SauerThe administration used this argument to request that the Supreme Court suspend the lower-court order.
About this summary

Originally published by Clarín 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.

More Stories

From Our Blog