.png)
9 hours ago
12
A federal judge on Friday again blocked Donald Trump’s executive order to impose sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting, the latest in a legal back-and-forth playing out less than two months before election day.
US district court judge Indira Talwani initially placed a temporary order blocking the president’s mandate and has now extended that prohibition with a stronger preliminary injunction. The ruling comes hours after North Carolina became the first state to start sending out mail-in ballots for the 3 November midterm elections.
Talwani referred to the tight timeline in her ruling.
“Plaintiff States are required under state law to mail millions of ballots to voters on a prescribed timeframe. As detailed below, they are unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly guaranteeing significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
Trump signed an executive order in March that would create a nationwide list of verified eligible voters, compelling the US Postal Service (USPS) to work with states to establish lists of mail-in voters before elections. The result would mean a limited ballot delivery only to voters on those lists.
The Trump administration had already appealed against her temporary block to the supreme court, and it appeared the justices were likely to have a final say on the matter. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the administration quickly appealed against Friday’s ruling.
USPS has said in recent court filings that the technology needed to administer the order isn’t even available. Earlier this week, a USPS whistleblower came forward and warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” if the agency were to try to carry out the order.
After Trump signed the order, a coalition of 24 state attorneys general joined together suing USPS to challenge the rule. They also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as litigation was ongoing. Oral argument on the coalition’s request for a preliminary injunction was held on Thursday.
“We’ve now secured longer-term relief that will keep the USPS changes blocked while our case moves forward,” said Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, who co-led the state coalition. “We will continue to take all steps to stop the Trump Administration from trampling on voting rights and restricting mail voting.”
The order allows states to voluntarily use the new system. To date, not a single state has announced that it will do so.
A coalition of voter service and civic groups, plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the lawsuit, issued a statement: “Today’s ruling makes it crystal clear: The U.S. Postal Service must deliver all election mail. USPS has no authority in the Constitution or federal law over how states administer mail voting. And the President cannot order the Postal Service to create a disruptive new bureaucracy that will throw the election into chaos and disenfranchise untold numbers of voters.”
Trump has long sought to limit mail voting, even though he himself often uses that method to cast his own ballot. He has falsely blamed mail balloting for his 2020 election loss, spreading baseless claims of fraud, but has so far been unable to change the longstanding voting procedure.
An initial executive order Trump issued last year to change election rules, including a requirement for people to show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, was halted by federal judges. They ruled that the constitution gives states and, in some cases, Congress the power to set voting procedures, not the president.
After Trump issued his mail voting executive order in March, Democrats and voting rights groups filed several lawsuits. Two ended up before Talwani, who placed an initial hold on the order in June, prohibiting its implementation until after November.
But the supreme court late last month overturned that order. Its conservative majority pointedly did not say Trump’s move was legal but found the lawsuits were filed prematurely before the US Postal Service issued its rule on how it would implement the order. The rule came out just before the supreme court released its ruling, and the plaintiffs refiled their suits.
