The US Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict how states handle mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections, according to Euronews. The emergency decision allows states to continue sending ballots under procedures they have used for years, which have accounted for nearly one-third of votes cast.
The court’s majority indicated that the administration’s effort to introduce the restrictions this year was likely to fail on the merits, although its brief order did not explain the reasoning in detail. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito argued that the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate mail and probably could enforce the proposed requirements.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the restrictions should not take effect for the upcoming midterms, but suggested he might support the administration’s position if the issue returns to the court later. The administration had asked the justices to intervene while voting was already under way and before several states had completed preparations for the contests.
The proposed system would have required states to use a uniform envelope design and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could have refused to deliver ballots from states that failed to comply. Election officials said there was not enough time for a complete overhaul, and Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending ballots while the new system remained inactive.
State officials and voting-rights groups challenged the plan, arguing that the president lacked constitutional authority to impose election rules that could sharply curtail mail voting shortly before a major election. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said the ruling would allow officials to continue their work without changing election processes to meet unrealistic requirements. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said access to voting and election security should not be treated as mutually exclusive.
The League of Women Voters, a plaintiff, described the proposal as an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting. A whistleblower report cited in the case also warned that technical problems with the proposed postal portal could have caused large batches of ballots to be discarded. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately comment, Euronews reported.