Home · Politics · Sep 14 archive
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Mail Ballot Rules Again
Confirmed
In Short: A federal judge has once more halted the U.S. Postal Service from implementing President Trump's new rules for mail ballots, citing concerns that it could disenfranchise millions of voters.
In a latest development, a federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enacting President Trump’s sweeping new mail ballot rules for the November election, the latest in a series of legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to streamline the voting process.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, follows similar injunctions from other judges, who have raised concerns about the potential for chaos and disenfranchisement if the rules are implemented.
The judge’s decision comes as states and independent voting rights groups have sued, alleging that the new rules threaten to disenfranchise voters and make it difficult for them to educate the public on their voting options.
In a statement, the judge emphasized that the rule ensures states remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and ballot content, and does not dictate mailing or receipt deadlines or ballot-counting procedures.
A Postal Service whistleblower has added to the skepticism, alleging that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots is fundamentally flawed and could reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.
The latest injunction comes as some states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots, raising concerns about the practicality of implementing the new rules in time for the midterms.
The judge gave the parties until October 9 to submit briefings on what relief remains outstanding, indicating that the legal battle over the mail ballot rules is far from over.
What's confirmed
- In a latest development, a federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enacting President Trump’s sweeping new mail ballot rules for the November election, the latest in a series of legal challenges to the administration’s efforts to streamline the voting process.
- The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, follows similar injunctions from other judges, who have raised concerns about the potential for chaos and disenfranchisement if the rules are implemented.
- The judge’s decision comes as states and independent voting rights groups have sued, alleging that the new rules threaten to disenfranchise voters and make it difficult for them to educate the public on their voting options.
- In a statement, the judge emphasized that the rule ensures states remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and ballot content, and does not dictate mailing or receipt deadlines or ballot-counting procedures.
- A Postal Service whistleblower has added to the skepticism, alleging that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots is fundamentally flawed and could reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.
- The latest injunction comes as some states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots, raising concerns about the practicality of implementing the new rules in time for the midterms.
- The judge gave the parties until October 9 to submit briefings on what relief remains outstanding, indicating that the legal battle over the mail ballot rules is far from over.
What's still developing
- A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration's directive for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to cut its workforce in half was unlawful.
- U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found on Friday that the Department of Homeland Security acted unlawfully by taking control of FEMA's authority over its own personnel and pushing the agency to slash thousands of disaster-response jobs.
- But on Friday, the judge wrote that FEMA appeared to be moving forward with the job cuts.
- Chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream details the Supreme Court's latest rulings, including a decision in Trump v.
- Cook, the court states the president cannot unilaterally fire a Federal Reserve governor.
- “In some States... compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the states argued.
- The ruling is being appealed by the administration and the directive may ultimately end up back before the U.S. Supreme Court.