Court Hands Democrats Another Win Against Trump on Vote by Mail

President Donald Trump wants to halt vote-by-mail in states that refuse to turn over voter data to the administration. But the courts just don’t seem to feel the same way. On June 24, Postmaster General David Steiner confirmed the USPS wouldn’t deliver mail-in ballots in states that refuse to comply. A week later to the day, however, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia barred the postal service from going through with that plan.

This wasn’t the first time in recent weeks that President Trump’s agenda was thwarted by a judicial ruling, either. Just a day after Postmaster General Steiner’s announcement, in fact, another district judge ruled that many parts of the president’s executive order were unconstitutional, and a few days after that, the US Supreme Court shut down his hopes of narrowing the span of time in which mailed ballots can be received. Meanwhile, on the legislative end, the SAVE America Act continues to elude him. Want federal funding for ICE and CBP and a pair of reconciliation bills this term? Sure. Want election security? Well, the check’s in the mail – and so are the ballots.  

Another Vote-by-Mail Loss for Trump

President Trump issued an executive order back in March directing the US Postal Service to come up with a rule to restrict vote-by-mail in certain states. Any state hoping to have ballots delivered by mail must submit to the USPS a list of eligible voters at least 60 days before a federal election. Post Master General David Steiner obliged, announcing the policy on Wednesday, June 24. Democrats across the nation, of course, had long since sued – and we got the first ruling on it just a day after Steiner’s announcement.

On Thursday, June 25, Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee at the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, found many parts of the executive order “legally void” for going beyond what the president is empowered to do by the Constitution. “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers of elections,” she wrote in her opinion. As well, her 37-page ruling prevents the Department of Homeland Security or the Social Security Administration from creating a nationwide voter registration list by compiling data of verified US citizens eligible to vote.

Just this week, a second judge chimed in. District Judge Emmet Sullivan over in DC, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of the NAACP’s argument that the postal policy violates a December 2021 settlement agreement requiring USPS to “prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail” through the 2028 elections.

Sullivan wrote that Trump’s order was “designed to exert federal control over who in the United States may be sent a mail-in or absentee ballot in federal elections by the Postal Service.”

“The proposed USPS changes would have created unnecessary and unlawful barriers, in direct violation of the USPS’s mandate to prioritize election mail,” Anthony Ashton, senior associate general counsel at NAACP, said in a statement after the ruling Wednesday. “This decision makes clear that access to the ballot cannot be tied to arbitrary requirements.”

The very same day, the Department of Justice asked for a stay of the court’s order in California v. Trump, the case previously decided by Judge Talwani in Boston. The next day, Thursday, July 2, the DOJ filed its appeal.

Trump’s Supreme Mail-In Loss

Despite some differences between the cases, both uphold the idea that election laws are within the remit of the individual states. It’s a theme the US Supreme Court followed, as well. On June 29, the Court ruled in Watson v. Republican National Committee that states (in this case specifically, Mississippi) could count ballots received days late, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, arguing that nothing in the federal statutes required ballots to be physically received by Election Day. She was joined by Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

The 5-4 decision upholds individual state laws regulating vote-by-mail ballots in accordance with the Constitution, which states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” Of course, it goes on to say, “but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” That’s an act of Congress, though, not executive action.

An Act of Congress Isn’t Any Easier

And speaking of acts of Congress – or the notable lack thereof – the SAVE America Act, President Trump’s other election-security bid, continues to be a stumbling block for both the White House and the GOP legislature. As Liberty Nation News Editor-in-Chief Mark Angelides reported more than a week ago, President Trump and some within the congressional GOP are holding the legislature hostage over the SAVE America Act, which has failed repeatedly to advance through the Senate.

Well, things haven’t gotten any better for Trump here, either. Both chambers of Congress left early for the Fourth of July weekend, calling it quits without accomplishing anything on this front Wednesday. They just met briefly in pro forma status on Thursday to prevent Trump from taking any out-of-session actions before they return on the sixth. On Thursday, though, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told The News & Observer that the SAVE America Act was dead, if for no other reason than because there isn’t enough time to change election laws before the midterms.

“Unless they do the work to get the 60 votes, they know it’s dead, and so all this is theater,” he said, adding that even if the bill passes, there’s no chance of implementing it before the November 3 general elections. “Honestly, here in North Carolina, or in virtually any state, the ability, if we go back to when we implemented voter ID in North Carolina, it took a year to get everything in place with adequate funding.”

“Let’s assume you only allow early voting in the month of October,” he added. “Then do you honestly believe that we can have this thing up in 50 states? There’s no funding. There’s no specific implementation instructions.”

Tillis’ conclusion? “It’s become a joke.” Well, for now, the joke seems to be on President Trump and his dreams of pinning down an election-security legacy, though he certainly isn’t laughing about it.