
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Mail-in ballots in their envelopes await processing at the Pomona Fairplex in Pomona, California, on October 28, 2020.
"This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it," warned the ACLU's Voting Rights Project director.
The battle over President Donald Trump's attack on voting by mail continued on Wednesday, as a federal judge in Massachusetts lifted her injunction on the Republican's March executive order and the coalition behind that case took action against a related US Postal Service rule.
Despite repeatedly voting by mail himself, Trump ordered various federal actions to restrict participation in elections, including the creation of the rule that the USPS finalized last week amid various ongoing legal fights. Among them is the case in Boston, under US District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama.
Talwani on Tuesday found that the Trump administration violated her injunction by finalizing the Postal Service rule, but she declined to take any action. Then, on Wednesday, she lifted her injunction—which, as MS NOW noted, "was the only remaining roadblock to implementing the executive order."
The judge cited the US Supreme Court's Monday ruling in a separate case brought by Democratic state attorneys general. Rather than weighing the constitutionality of Trump's order, the six right-wing justices ruled that AGs had filed their lawsuit prematurely and lifted another lower court's injunction.
Refusing to back down, the Democratic AGs on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the newly finalized USPS rule—following in the footsteps of other Democratic Party leaders and a "pro-voter" coalition that filed separate challenges to the policy on Tuesday.
The coalition that had compelled Talwani to issue her injunction also took aim at the USPS rule on Wednesday, submitting to her court a supplemental complaint as well as a request for a new injunction blocking the policy for the November midterms.
Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the US Postal Service’s (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule Full statement: https://bit.ly/4cd8nDq
[image or embed]
— League of Women Voters of the US (@lwv.org) August 26, 2026 at 4:50 PM
"The court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts," the groups and their attorneys said in a joint statement.
"Implementing the newly finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs' core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement," they added. "We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public’s confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections."
The plaintiffs are the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, League of Women Voters, LWV of Massachusetts, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, and US Vote Foundation. They are represented by the state and national ACLU, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Legal Defense Fund.
"USPS's decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it," declared Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project.
"No administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process," she added. "Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The battle over President Donald Trump's attack on voting by mail continued on Wednesday, as a federal judge in Massachusetts lifted her injunction on the Republican's March executive order and the coalition behind that case took action against a related US Postal Service rule.
Despite repeatedly voting by mail himself, Trump ordered various federal actions to restrict participation in elections, including the creation of the rule that the USPS finalized last week amid various ongoing legal fights. Among them is the case in Boston, under US District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama.
Talwani on Tuesday found that the Trump administration violated her injunction by finalizing the Postal Service rule, but she declined to take any action. Then, on Wednesday, she lifted her injunction—which, as MS NOW noted, "was the only remaining roadblock to implementing the executive order."
The judge cited the US Supreme Court's Monday ruling in a separate case brought by Democratic state attorneys general. Rather than weighing the constitutionality of Trump's order, the six right-wing justices ruled that AGs had filed their lawsuit prematurely and lifted another lower court's injunction.
Refusing to back down, the Democratic AGs on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the newly finalized USPS rule—following in the footsteps of other Democratic Party leaders and a "pro-voter" coalition that filed separate challenges to the policy on Tuesday.
The coalition that had compelled Talwani to issue her injunction also took aim at the USPS rule on Wednesday, submitting to her court a supplemental complaint as well as a request for a new injunction blocking the policy for the November midterms.
Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the US Postal Service’s (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule Full statement: https://bit.ly/4cd8nDq
[image or embed]
— League of Women Voters of the US (@lwv.org) August 26, 2026 at 4:50 PM
"The court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts," the groups and their attorneys said in a joint statement.
"Implementing the newly finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs' core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement," they added. "We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public’s confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections."
The plaintiffs are the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, League of Women Voters, LWV of Massachusetts, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, and US Vote Foundation. They are represented by the state and national ACLU, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Legal Defense Fund.
"USPS's decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it," declared Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project.
"No administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process," she added. "Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted."
The battle over President Donald Trump's attack on voting by mail continued on Wednesday, as a federal judge in Massachusetts lifted her injunction on the Republican's March executive order and the coalition behind that case took action against a related US Postal Service rule.
Despite repeatedly voting by mail himself, Trump ordered various federal actions to restrict participation in elections, including the creation of the rule that the USPS finalized last week amid various ongoing legal fights. Among them is the case in Boston, under US District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama.
Talwani on Tuesday found that the Trump administration violated her injunction by finalizing the Postal Service rule, but she declined to take any action. Then, on Wednesday, she lifted her injunction—which, as MS NOW noted, "was the only remaining roadblock to implementing the executive order."
The judge cited the US Supreme Court's Monday ruling in a separate case brought by Democratic state attorneys general. Rather than weighing the constitutionality of Trump's order, the six right-wing justices ruled that AGs had filed their lawsuit prematurely and lifted another lower court's injunction.
Refusing to back down, the Democratic AGs on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the newly finalized USPS rule—following in the footsteps of other Democratic Party leaders and a "pro-voter" coalition that filed separate challenges to the policy on Tuesday.
The coalition that had compelled Talwani to issue her injunction also took aim at the USPS rule on Wednesday, submitting to her court a supplemental complaint as well as a request for a new injunction blocking the policy for the November midterms.
Voting rights organizations today supplemented the complaint in their lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting to add claims against the US Postal Service’s (USPS) newly-finalized mail ballot rule Full statement: https://bit.ly/4cd8nDq
[image or embed]
— League of Women Voters of the US (@lwv.org) August 26, 2026 at 4:50 PM
"The court has already found that the executive order unconstitutionally usurps the authority of the states and Congress to regulate elections, and the newly finalized rule eliminates any doubt about the harms stemming from these unlawful acts," the groups and their attorneys said in a joint statement.
"Implementing the newly finalized rule less than 70 days before the general election would dramatically impair plaintiffs' core voter engagement work and pose a grave risk of disenfranchisement," they added. "We are asking the court for emergency relief to prevent this harm and to affirm the public’s confidence in the systems voters rely on to conduct our elections."
The plaintiffs are the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, League of Women Voters, LWV of Massachusetts, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, and US Vote Foundation. They are represented by the state and national ACLU, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Legal Defense Fund.
"USPS's decision to rush this blatantly unconstitutional rule into effect just weeks before an election is the latest step in a rollout that has sown confusion at every turn and now threatens to disenfranchise voters who did everything right. This is chaos by design, and voters are the ones who will pay for it," declared Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project.
"No administration should be able to manufacture confusion around how we vote and undermine confidence in our elections in the process," she added. "Rather than serving voters, this rule threatens access to the ballot and treats voters as collateral damage. We will continue to use every legal tool available to block this illegal power grab and ensure voters can cast mail ballots with the confidence that their votes will be counted."