{"id":338,"date":"2026-07-02T11:08:42","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T11:08:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=338"},"modified":"2026-07-02T11:08:42","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T11:08:42","slug":"dont-let-the-supreme-courts-big-decision-fool-you-trump-is-still-a-threat-to-mail-ballots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=338","title":{"rendered":"Don\u2019t Let the Supreme Court\u2019s Big Decision Fool You. Trump Is Still a Threat to Mail Ballots."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

This is <\/em>Executive Dysfunction<\/em>, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law\u2014or how the law is pushing back\u2014and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate\u2019s Jurisprudence team. <\/em>Click here<\/em> to receive it in your inbox each week.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more A New Trump Order Would Be a Disaster for U.S. Intelligence. His Motives Are a Mystery.<\/a><\/p>\n

It would be easy to hail the U.S. Supreme Court justices as heroes for their ruling in Watson v.<\/em>
RNC<\/em> last week, which preserves states\u2019 right to count mailed ballots sent by Election Day, but received days later. The decision is undoubtedly a win for preserving access to U.S. elections. But lest we forget, just two months ago this same Supreme Court severely restricted the voting rights of minority Americans by gutting a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais<\/em>, setting off an undemocratic redistricting war mere months before a consequential midterm election cycle. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has been busy actively abusing his executive authority to wrest control of America\u2019s electoral system from states, coming most recently in the form of abuses by his postmaster general, David Steiner. Steiner testified before Congress last week that the United States Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots in states that don\u2019t hand over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Though two days later a judge ruled USPS could not do such a thing, the legal battle over U.S. elections is just getting started.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Slate Video Content<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In June, USPS published a proposed rule that detailed how it would not deliver mail ballots in states that had not provided their voter rolls to the federal government, citing compliance with Executive Order 14399. Back in March, Trump signed an order that sought to establish a national voter database by forcing states to provide a list of all of their registered voters, in the pursuit of preventing \u201cvoter fraud.\u201d It included a specific call to action for USPS to establish new standards for mail ballots and to refuse to transmit mail ballots from individuals who live in states that had not provided a list of their voters to the federal government. In the months after this order was signed, most states did not comply, and the Justice Department filed lawsuits to force their hands. That suit has been unsuccessful in court.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Steiner directed USPS to comply with the president\u2019s order and was called to Congress to testify about it last week. This is when Steiner confirmed to senators that USPS would not deliver mail ballots in states where no voter roll data had been submitted to the federal government, arguing that it\u2019s all in an effort to \u201cmake sure the right ballots are going to the right people.\u201d<\/p>\n

At least five lawsuits were filed against Trump\u2019s executive order, including by 23 states and Washington, D.C., who banded together to file suit. One day after Steiner\u2019s testimony, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled on the states\u2019 case, blocking the order from taking effect after finding it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers doctrine. \u201cThe Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power,\u201d , also noting how it\u2019s clear that Trump\u2019s order is an attempt to threaten states with criminal prosecution if they don\u2019t comply. This will inevitably chill local election officials from being able to fulfill their legal obligations to carry out U.S. elections.<\/p>\n

Talwani also picked apart Steiner\u2019s new rule for USPS, pointing out that there is no federal law enacted by Congress that gives USPS authority to control voting by mail. Any existing voting-related guidance that USPS does have is not binding, it\u2019s merely recommended. Plus, the time frame for states to comply with Steiner\u2019s new rule makes no allowance for Congress\u2019 mandated procedure regarding USPS rulemaking.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a major blow to Trump\u2019s plot to rig the midterms,\u201d Robert Reich, law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and former secretary of labor, commented on Bluesky. \u201cAnd the cruel irony is that it will make it easier for Trump to keep voting by mail himself.\u201d Ever since his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, Trump has incessantly attacked mail voting, which tends to favor Democrats, despite using it himself.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Talwani\u2019s order, and there are still plenty more lawsuits against the president\u2019s executive order on mail voting that need to play out in the courts. Meanwhile, Trump is pushing his agenda through different means in Washington, holding up a housing affordability bill to force Republicans to first pass the SAVE Act. It\u2019s a piece of legislation that\u2019s been stalled in Congress since the beginning of this year because it hasn\u2019t been able to garner enough votes, while Trump has been putting the pressure on Republicans. \u201cIt will guarantee the midterms,\u201d Trump said back in March about the SAVE Act. \u201cIf you don\u2019t get it, big trouble, in my opinion.\u201d The bill would severely tighten voter registration standards by requiring proof of citizenship, but would exclude documents like marriage licenses or name-change records, limit voting by mail, and mandate states to purge their voter rolls more frequently and share their voter lists with Homeland Security. And<\/em> it would take effect immediately upon Trump signing it into law.<\/p>\n

This week, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson failed to get enough Republican support for the SAVE Act, with 13 Republicans joining Democrats against the bill. Now, lawmakers are headed home for a two-week recess.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also worth noting that alongside Callais<\/em> and Watson<\/em>, the Supreme Court also decided on a major campaign finance case this week in NRSC v. FEC<\/em>. In a , the conservative majority struck down limits to coordinated spending between candidates and political parties that\u2019s expected to have an immediate impact on the midterms. The decision will now give candidates direct control over how much money is being spent on their race, which is viewed as a massive windfall for Republicans, who tend to attract more deep-pocketed donors. This decision could be a major blow for Democrats, as Federal Election Commission reports revealed how the Democratic National Committee was getting outraised by up to $18.5 million in February compared to the Republican National Committee, while it was also carrying over $17 million in debt.<\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court has been busy chipping away at constitutional norms, states are still reeling in the aftereffects of Callais<\/em>. The redistricting wars are running full steam ahead, with a new decision Monday from the Colorado Supreme Court eliminating Democrats\u2019 chances of gaining more seats there. Democrats were attempting to put Colorado\u2019s independent redistricting commission on hold by asking voters to approve new congressional maps only for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles. If successful, the ballot measures would have put Democrats in a position to win seven of the state\u2019s eight congressional seats\u2014Democrats currently hold four in Colorado.<\/p>\n

A similar scenario played out in Virginia, where the state Supreme Court blocked a new\u00a0congressional map drawn by Democrats that voters had approved via ballot measure from taking effect. In the end, the Cook Political Report predicts the most likely scenario is that Republicans net around five seats from redistricting efforts, but Democrats will still win control of the House, given the GOP only has a three-seat majority and the public opinion winds are in their favor. Still, overcoming the redistricting headwinds will be a struggle, no matter how unpopular Republicans are.<\/p>\n

Read more All The President\u2019s Money<\/a><\/p>\n

Considering all of these changes and challenges to U.S. elections, it\u2019s safe to say President Trump and the current far-right Supreme Court have successfully upended decades of accepted electoral norms, cementing outright partisanship as the law of the land while stripping voters of the power to elect their ideal candidate. This is our new political reality, and it cannot simply be undone once Trump is no longer president. To get back to a place that the Constitution and America\u2019s Founding Fathers envisioned will require an emboldened Congress to double down on a good-faith mission to save U.S. democracy\u2014starting, perhaps, after they return from recess.<\/p>\n

We hope you learned a thing or two from this edition of Executive Dysfunction, and if you enjoyed reading it, please consider <\/em>supporting our legal journalism by becoming a Slate Plus member<\/em>!<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Elsewhere in Jurisprudence<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n