Voting rights groups challenge USPS rule on Trump’s anti-voting order in next chapter of litigation
Voting rights groups Wednesday challenged the U.S. Postal Service’s published rule that would implement parts of President Donald Trump’s anti-mail voting executive order, seeking to block the suppressive voting measures before the midterms.
Amid a flurry of litigation, the pro-voters’ challenge marks the next chapter for groups that will now move past procedural woes to arguing how the Postal Service’s rule would logistically harm voters.
The challenge, led by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, argued the rule gives the USPS “election regulator” status it does not have under the Constitution.
Get updates straight to your inbox — for free
Join 350,000 readers who rely on our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest in voting, elections and democracy.
This authority allows the USPS to regulate states’ designs for mail ballots, force states to adopt the new standards and altogether refuse ballots that do not meet them. Under the rule, plaintiffs said the USPS can also act as “arbiter of state laws,” deciding when states send out mail ballots and rejecting voters from state lists who do not meet the stated deadline.
“The Final rule attempts to disguise as a technical procedure what is really granting itself authority to enforce state election laws,” the filing reads.
The plaintiffs also noted the rule seemingly contradicts the independent agency’s own prior job description.
In 2022, USPS deemed itself to have “no role in determining the extent to which mail is used for participating in elections, the design of ballots or return envelopes, or whether or how ballots are counted.”
Because the rule would inflict confusion and disorder in the run-up to November midterm elections, plaintiffs argued, it will cause a logistical nightmare that “imminently risks disenfranchisement.”
They asked the district court for both a short-term and permanent block to thwart the rule’s implementation, asking U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani to promptly weigh in on the motion for an immediate temporary restraining order and to rule on their motion for a preliminary injunction by Sept. 9.