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.
Rather than selling this public treasure off to the highest bidder, we should explore opportunities for strengthening the Postal Service to deliver even better services in the 21st century.
Unlike the for-profit carriers, the Postal Service has a universal service obligation to provide affordable deliveries to all Americans, regardless of where they live or work. Currently, USPS parcel rates are about 25% to 60% below FedEx and UPS prices.
Would we want for-profit corporations handling our ballots?
Without competition from this public service, for-profit firms would jack up delivery fees on as many customers as possible. Who would be hit hardest? Most likely those who live or work in ZIP codes where private carriers already impose surcharges because deliveries to these addresses are less profitable.
A new Institute for Policy Studies report finds that UPS and FedEx area surcharges now apply to retail customers sending parcels using their own packaging to addresses in ZIP codes where 102 million Americans live. Not surprisingly, these include addresses in Hawaii, Alaska, and rural and remote areas. But they also cover many small towns and neighborhoods just outside major cities.
UPS and FedEx charge around $43 extra for shipments to Alaska and about $15 extra for deliveries to Hawaii and remote areas where nearly 4 million Americans live. The private carriers slap “extended area surcharges” of $8.30 on home deliveries in rural ZIP codes with a combined population of 35 million. Residential delivery surcharges run a little over $6 in suburban and small-town ZIP codes where 19 million people live.
Unlike the public Postal Service, the private carriers also impose extra charges for Saturday delivery, for fuel (based on distance), for package pickup, and for residential delivery. These charges reflect the higher costs for companies that, unlike USPS, aren’t already visiting every address six days a week.
Today’s higher FedEx and UPS delivery rates are just a taste of what would come if the Trump administration succeeds in privatizing USPS. In fact, Wells Fargo recently published a postal privatization plan that recommends hiking USPS parcel delivery rates by 30% to 140%. Their aim: to fatten up the hog before selling off this lucrative part of the postal business. Private carriers could also flat out refuse to deliver to far-flung addresses.
On top of higher delivery costs, rural communities would suffer the most from other impacts of a for-profit model. For instance, they would likely face the shuttering of many post offices and the related loss of postal jobs that pay decent wages with benefits.
Rural residents also rely heavily on USPS to deliver prescriptions, since many small-town pharmacies have shut down. The Postal Service also handles mail order prescriptions for military veterans, more than a quarter of whom live in rural areas.
During the 2024 general election, the Postal Service delivered more than 99 million ballots to or from voters. Rural voters rely particularly heavily on the mail-in option because physical polling sites are often long distances from their homes. Nationwide, half of rural county polling sites serve an area greater than 62 square miles, compared to just 2 square miles for urban sites. Would we want for-profit corporations handling our ballots?
Over its 250-year history, our public Postal Service has continually reinvented itself in response to changes in technology and the evolving needs of our society. Rather than selling this public treasure off to the highest bidder, we should explore opportunities for strengthening the Postal Service to deliver even better services in the 21st century.
In addition to the growing package delivery market, there are many opportunities for generating new revenue. For example, USPS could provide additional financial services, such as low-fee ATMs and check cashing. It could work with state and local governments to gather data on public safety and environmental risks through monitors on delivery vehicles. It could follow the models of some foreign postal services by providing check-in services for elderly and disabled residents.
With its extensive and valuable human resources and infrastructure, USPS has a strong foundation on which to continue providing a vital public service for all Americans for generations to come.
In a blow to one of the many Republican attempts to stop people from voting across the country, a federal judge Monday afternoon struck down a GOP attempt to invalidate 127,000 ballots cast at drive-thru voting sites in Harris County, Texas.
NPR reports U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen--a George W. Bush appointee--threw out the suit challenging the legality of the ballots, which were turned in by car at 10 sites throughout the Houston area in the Lone Star State's most populous county.
"Voter suppression doesn't get much more blatant than this outrageous attempt to invalidate the votes of nearly 127,000 Texans," said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, in response to the decision. "We hope this ruling eliminates some of the anxiety and confusion so many Houstonians were feeling. This should allow the election to be decided by Texas voters and not by a small group of people trying to disrupt our democracy through litigation, suppression and confusion."
\u201cBREAKING: 127,000 ballots cast at drive-thru sites in Harris County, Texas will be counted, a federal judge ruled.\n\nHarris County is 20% Black and 43% Latino. GOP petitioners attempted to invalidate the ballots, claiming drive-thru voting is unconstitutional.\u201d— AJ+ (@AJ+) 1604349801
\u201cThe outrageous voter suppression efforts by Texas Republicans are backfiring by motivating voters to turn out in record numbers to defend their voting rights, especially in Harris County. That\u2019s one of biggest stories from Texas in 2020 https://t.co/VUS3PeSAvI\u201d— Ari Berman (@Ari Berman) 1604348837
The decision came one day after the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition by a Republican activist and three GOP candidates in the state seeking to have the drive-thru votes tossed out for what they claimed was an illegal expansion of curbside voting--which under Texas law is only available for voters with disabilities--by Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins, a Democrat.
County officials had set up the drive-through polling places in order to make voting easier and safer during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to local news station KTRK, about 10% of all early ballots have been cast by car.
The GOP activist who filed the challenge, Steven Hotze, is no stranger to controversy. According to the Texas Tribune:
Hotze is an active GOP donor and is one of the most prolific culture warriors on the right. He's a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and was a key figure in the unsuccessful push for the 2017 "bathroom bill" in the Texas Legislature. This year, he has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to overturn Gov. Greg Abbott's coronavirus restrictions and block Harris County's efforts to make it easier for people to vote. And he left a voicemail for Abbott's chief of staff this summer telling him to shoot and kill people protesting the in-custody death of George Floyd.
While voting rights advocates hailed the decision as a victory, Halen sounded a warning to any Harris County residents thinking of voting by car on Tuesday: "If I were to vote tomorrow, I would not vote in a drive-thru location out of concern about if it's legal or not," he said.
"I am looking at statue right here," the judge added. "On Election Day, they're supposed to vote in a building."
Nevertheless, Andre Segura, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, applauded Halen's decision.
"This is what democracy looks like," he said in a statement. "This is the third attempt by these individuals to throw out votes legally cast, and once again they've been denied. Our justice system did its duty today to ensure voting rights are protected and our democracy remains intact."
\u201c@ACLU \ud83d\ude4c\ud83c\udfff\ud83d\ude4c\ud83c\udfff\ud83d\ude4c\ud83c\udfff Ok who\u2019s next? NC? https://t.co/QdDC6rewFs\u201d— ACLU (@ACLU) 1604350805
Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, called the ruling "a huge victory for Texas voters."
"The court was right to reject this outrageous attempt to undermine a true and accurate vote count and improperly influence the outcome of the election," she added.
LIVE: Democrats Respond After Judge Rejects GOP Bid to Toss Texas Drive-Thru VotesA federal judge rejected a bid by Republican activists to invalidate 127000 votes in the most populous county in Texas. “For lack ...
The failed Republican attempt is but one of many GOP voter suppression efforts around the country. Writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, Ben Ginsburg, one of the nation's most prominent conservative election lawyers, said that:
The Trump campaign and Republican entities engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none--zero--are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers. All of the suits include the mythical fraud claim. Many are efforts to disqualify absentee ballots, which have surged in the pandemic.
"This attempted disenfranchisement of voters cannot be justified by the unproven Republican dogma about widespread fraud," added Ginsberg. "Challenging voters at the polls or disputing the legitimacy of mail-in ballots isn't about fraud. Rather than producing conservative policies that appeal to suburban women, young voters or racial minorities, Republicans are trying to exclude their votes."