Blue states urge Supreme Court to sit out Trump’s anti-mail voting order fight for now

There’s no reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to lift a judge’s bar on President Donald Trump’s anti-mail voting order with a federal appeals court poised to act, Democratic states argued.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service’s mail voting restrictions for 14 days. On Thursday, she heard arguments in Boston on whether a longer-term injunction is necessary before November’s midterm elections.

Even though that temporary ban will expire soon, the Justice Department rushed to the Supreme Court only hours after Talwani’s hearing in its latest attempt to put Trump’s order into force. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift Talwani’s block until the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to weigh in.

“This Court’s jurisdiction is highly questionable given the imminent expiration of the TRO,” the blue states told the Supreme Court in their initial argument. “At a minimum, there is no sensible reason for the Court to grant an administrative stay when any appellate proceedings concerning the TRO will so soon be moot.”

The states will make more detailed arguments in a brief due before the high court on Tuesday.

The USPS rule implementing Trump’s executive order on mail voting would impose a series of new requirements on states such as new envelope designs for mail ballots and submitting names of authorized mail voters to a federal master list via a web portal that has not yet gone live.

The states said the Trump administration can’t show any immediate harm from the TRO, as it still allows USPS to continue work on the rule so long as states are not required to take action.

They also took a swipe at the DOJ’s struggle to explain in court the status of an online federal portal to collect the list of approved voters. 

“Applicants make no effort to explain how they could possibly be entitled to emergency relief to effectuate a Rule that they currently lack the technological capacity to administer,” the states wrote.

On the other hand, states said they would bear an immediate burden as implementing the USPS rules would be “profoundly disruptive” to their “ongoing preparations for the rapidly approaching midterm election.”

“Even if state and local officials could meet the Rule’s impossible demands, there is a high risk that errors and delay on USPS’ part will disenfranchise voters,” they wrote, pointing to a bombshell whistleblower report this week that detailed the rushed and flawed computer systems being developed by USPS.