The Supreme Court will let Donald Trump implement a sweeping executive order for new mail-in voting rules that could significantly restrict voters’ access to ballots in high-stakes midterm elections this fall, but the legal battle is far from over.
Federal courts have repeatedly blocked the U.S. Postal Service from further implementing Trump’s executive order that sought to create a national voter registration list that would be used to decide who is eligible to cast a ballot.
On August 21, the U.S. Postal Service published its new certification requirements, changes that could not go into effect until federal courts lifted an injunction against them.
Monday’s 6-3 decision — with the court’s liberal justices dissenting — will leave room for legal challenges to continue, which could further slow or block Trump’s order altogether with critical registration and ballot deadlines fast approaching before Election Day.
Dozens of election officials and voting rights groups have warned that Trump’s order would cause chaos before midterms without enough time to ensure eligible voters aren’t wrongly removed from voter rolls — errors that could disenfranchise millions of Americans.
Lawyers for voting rights groups who sued to block Trump’s order said they’re “disappointed” by the ruling but will continue challenging the administration’s efforts to enact the news Postal Service rules.
“It is important to note that today’s ruling only addresses the timing of the state plaintiffs’ challenge. It does not affect any voters’ ability to cast a mail ballot. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the executive order, and made clear: ‘If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule,’” they said in a statement shared with The Independent.
“President Trump’s attempt to seize control of election rules from the states and Congress is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful, and with today’s ruling, we will continue to vigorously pursue all available avenues to challenge this executive order,” they added. “We are committed to protecting the right to vote, including full access to mail ballots for the millions of eligible voters who rely on them.”
Earlier this month, nearly two dozen state attorneys general wrote to the court to warn that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme.”
“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and, as a result, disenfranchised,” they wrote.
A bipartisan coalition of 118 current and former election officials tasked with running the nation’s elections said the results will be “chaos.” And a group of 53 judges — most of whom were appointed by Republicans — called Trump’s order “a recipe for confusion among voters” that will “strain” election officials.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani previously rejected the government’s argument that courts cannot rule on the legality of the new Postal Service process before it’s finalized, stating that it would be “prudent” to step in now with “millions of citizens who rely on mail voting” needing “clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November,” she wrote earlier this month.
Trump’s executive order, even if it hasn’t been implemented, “is thus causing irreparable harm” to states and voting rights groups “through the confusion it has engendered as to how they may vote in the fast-approaching midterm elections,” Talwani wrote.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared to disagree, saying that Trump’s executive order itself is not causing any harm to the states that sued to stop it, and any further injunction will “irreparably harm the government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.”
But Monday’s decision does not mean that the Trump’s implementation of the order will “necessarily be lawful,” the court’s majority wrote.
“On that score, time will tell,” the ruling states.
The decision merely postpones a decision on whether Trump’s attempts to “interfere” with elections are lawful, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan noted in their dissent. But a “common sense” reading of Trump’s executive order “makes clear” that it will cause irreparable harm to the states.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more to the point. Monday’s decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” she wrote.
Jackson accused the court’s conservative majority of creating a “Kafkaesque nightmare” for election lawsuits.
“Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring,” she wrote. “States administering elections and the voting public that relies on them to do so deserve clarity, not caginess or confusion.”
Trump — who has spent years baselessly insisting that voting by mail is ripe for fraud, and that manipulated ballots were “rigged” against him in elections he lost — is simultaneously demanding the Senate pass his SAVE America Act, which would also restrict mail-in voting and require ID to vote, among other changes.
Voting rights groups fear the president’s efforts to centralize control over election administration, which is left to the states under the Constitution, is an attempt to boost Republican candidates and suppress Democratic turnout.
In March, Trump issued an executive order that would require states to compile lists of eligible voters based on information from his own administration. The Postal Service would then be blocked from mailing ballots to anyone who did not appear on those lists, and election officials could remove eligible voters from state voter rolls without first getting a chance to see whether they made a mistake,.
“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House earlier this year. “I think this will help a lot with elections.”
Democratic officials in 23 states and Washington, D.C. sued to block the order, fearing the administration would needlessly upend election administration and chill participation with its baseless threats to prosecute election officials for doing their jobs.
