Courts Block USPS's New Mail-In Ballot Verification Rule
The U.S. Postal Service has issued a final rule adding new verification requirements for mail-in ballots, though the changes remain blocked by court injunctions and cannot take effect for this November's midterm elections.
USPS published the 95-page final rule late Friday, Aug. 21, saying it intends to implement the changes immediately if the government succeeds in getting the current court injunctions lifted. The rule stems from an executive order President Donald Trump signed March 31 directing USPS to develop new requirements governing mail-in and absentee ballots used in federal elections.
What the New Rule Would Require
Under the rule, states seeking to use USPS for mail-in or absentee ballots would need to enroll voters who request them on a "Mail-In and Absentee Participation List" and report basic voter information, including a voter's name and home address, tied to a unique intelligent mail barcode assigned to each ballot. State election officials would be required to input that information into a "federal ballot mail portal" before ballots enter the mail stream. USPS said it would not deliver mail-in ballots to any state that doesn't comply with the new requirements.
USPS emphasized limits on what the rule covers, stating, "No other voter information, such as birthdate, social security number, or other voter registration details, will be uploaded to the Portal." The agency added, "The Postal Service will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots." Officials also noted the rule stops short of some of what Trump's original executive order sought, including exceptions for military, disability, illness and travel-related mail voting, and does not amount to an outright ban on mail-in ballots.
Why the Rule Is Currently Blocked
Two separate court injunctions, issued by federal courts in California and Massachusetts, currently prevent the rule from taking effect. USPS acknowledged in its filing that it could have set an effective date after the November midterms without violating those injunctions, but chose an immediate effective date instead, a decision plaintiffs in the case argue could create confusion for voters ahead of the election.
A statement issued on behalf of the plaintiffs, which include the League of Women Voters, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas and the U.S. Vote Foundation, said, "Enforcement of the court's preliminary injunction is necessary to hold this administration accountable for its unlawful action and make clear that voters can confidently cast their mail ballot free from federal interference this November." The Supreme Court could weigh in on the underlying legal dispute at any point, potentially determining whether the injunctions remain in place before the midterms.
Concerns Raised by Voting Rights Advocates
Some voting rights advocates have raised concerns about the broader implications of consolidating voter information at the federal level. Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy for the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, said, "If the administration can determine who is American enough to register to vote, who can prove it sufficiently, then they would have a lot of power to shape the electorate." Diaz's organization has argued the rule could shift authority away from the traditionally state-run structure of U.S. elections.
USPS has said the data collected under the new system is intended in part to help with federal law enforcement efforts, though the agency maintains a clear separation between the ballot mail portal and existing statewide voter rolls.
Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.