US Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to restrict mail ballots

The brief

Context

Ahead of the November US midterm elections that decide control of Congress, the Trump administration sought to impose new federal requirements on how states handle mail ballots, using the US Postal Service's authority over mail as the legal basis. States would have had to adopt a uniform envelope style and upload lists of eligible voters to an online portal, with the Postal Service allowed to refuse delivery of ballots from non-compliant states. Democratic state officials and voting rights groups sued, lower courts blocked the plan, and the administration appealed to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket. On Monday the Supreme Court rejected the bid, leaving existing state mail-ballot processes intact while voting was already under way.

Key facts

• The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected Trump's bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, with voting already under way.
• Mail ballots have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast in US elections.
• The majority gave no reasoning, as is typical for the court's emergency docket; Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented.
• Alito wrote that the Postal Service "has broad authority to regulate the mail" and likely does have power to enforce Trump's restrictions.
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed the restrictions should not apply to the midterms but hinted he might back the administration if the issue returns later.
• Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was not active.
• The plan required a uniform envelope style and submission of eligible voter lists to an online portal; the Postal Service could refuse delivery to non-compliant states.
• A whistleblower report said millions of mail ballots might never be sent because the portal was not properly built and one bar code error could void an entire batch.

Timeline

1. 2020Trump loses the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden and falsely blames mail voting for the defeat.
2. This year (before the midterms)Trump himself casts a ballot by mail, the method he has long opposed.
3. Before the rulingDemocratic state officials and voting rights groups challenge the restrictions; lower courts block the plan, including a preliminary injunction by a judge Trump nominated.
4. Before the rulingThe federal government wins an early procedural decision at the Supreme Court, but the justices do not decide the plan's legality.
5. Past weekAlabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin begin sending mail ballots to voters.
6. MondayThe Supreme Court rejects the administration's bid; Alito and Thomas dissent, Kavanaugh concurs only as to timing.
7. NovemberMidterm contests for control of Congress are due.

Who has a stake

• President Donald Trump / his administration — Suffered a stark defeat on an issue he has framed as vital to election integrity, despite virtually no evidence of mail-ballot fraud.
• US Supreme Court — Placed once again at the centre of a political controversy; declined to rule on the plan's legality, leaving the question open.
• US Postal Service — Its claimed authority to regulate mail was the legal basis for the restrictions and for refusing delivery to non-compliant states.
• States voting largely by mail (Washington, Oregon, Colorado) — Faced the most disruption; officials say existing election processes are now protected.
• Alabama, North Carolina, Wisconsin — Had already begun mailing ballots while the new federal system was inactive.
• Voters using mail ballots — Nearly a third of votes are cast by mail; millions of ballots might not have been sent under the plan, per a whistleblower report.
• Democratic state officials and voting rights groups — Argued the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules; won in lower courts and at the Supreme Court.

Why it matters

Mail voting accounts for nearly a third of all US votes, so a last-minute federal overhaul could have disrupted ballots already in transit and, per a whistleblower, left millions unsent. The ruling reaffirms that states run their own election processes and that courts, including judges appointed by Trump, will check executive attempts to rewrite voting rules on the eve of an election. But the court did not decide the plan's legality, and Kavanaugh's signal leaves the door open for a future challenge.