Trump administration appeals to US Supreme Court again over mail-in voting

The Trump administration has again turned to the US Supreme Court in its effort to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting before November’s midterm elections. The emergency filing came two days after a federal judge blocked the US Postal Service from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order.

The administration asked the justices to temporarily allow USPS to track mail-in ballots and decide whether they could be rejected. The dispute continues even as some states have begun sending postal ballots to voters.

“

threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail

US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled on Friday that Trump’s directives, which would give the federal government power over the handling of mail-in ballots, were likely unconstitutional. She also criticised the timing, writing that implementation only two months before election day “threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail”.

“

Contrary to the claims of the district court and respondents that the Postal Service is trying to federalise the rules for mail-in voting, the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail.

The administration rejected that interpretation in its filing. US Solicitor General John Sauer said the Postal Service’s rule imposed only “reasonable preparation requirements” and did not take control of state election administration. He said states would still determine voter eligibility, ballot content, mailing and receipt deadlines, and counting procedures.

The administration said the rule would require states to upload intended ballot recipients’ names, addresses and barcode information to an online portal. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave opponents until Wednesday to respond. The filing was the administration’s third request for Supreme Court intervention. The court recently allowed the plan to proceed without deciding whether it was legal.

“

reasonable preparation requirements