SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
mail-in voting
Warning of Partisan Takeover, Senate Democrat Demands Freeze on Trump Postal Board Nominees
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
Jul 22, 2026
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Court Lands Latest Blow to Trump's 'Anti-Voting Agenda' by Blocking USPS Attack on Mailed Ballots
“USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy," said one case litigant.
Jul 01, 2026
In a ruling hailed by democracy defenders, a federal court on Wednesday halted the US Postal Service's implementation of President Donald Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of his administration's broader attack on voting rights.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a request by the NAACP to enforce a 2021 settlement agreement requiring the USPS to protect mail-in voting and prioritize delivery of mail related to elections through 2028.
The request followed the Postal Service's publication last month of a proposed rule that would block the delivery of mail-in ballots to voters in states where election officials refused to provide certain information to USPS or use a specific envelope design. That proposal came after Trump's March executive order directing federal agencies to create a nationwide list of eligible voters using federal data.
The directive also requires the Postal Service to verify that mail-in ballots are sent and returned only by eligible voters, preserve election-related records for a longer period, and exercise heightened oversight of mailed ballots.
The Public Citizen Litigation Group and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) filed a motion on behalf of the NAACP asserting that the proposed rule "manifests USPS’ intent not to deliver certain mail-in ballots, establishing a process that directly violates its obligations under the agreement."
“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’ plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” Public Citizen Litigation Group director Allison Zieve said in a statement following Sullivan's ruling. “USPS’ plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”
🚨BREAKING: In the latest blow to President Donald Trump’s anti-voting agenda, a federal court on Wednesday granted the NAACP’s request to halt the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) implementation of his executive order against mail voting. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
[image or embed]
— Marc Elias (@marcelias.bsky.social) July 1, 2026 at 1:41 PM
LDF associate director-counsel Sam Spital said, “Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters."
"We are glad that the court blocked a blatant attempt to renege on this commitment through a proposed rule that ran the risk of undermining the fairness of our national elections, creating particular dangers for Black voters," Spital continued. "LDF will continue to defend our democracy and combat unlawful restrictions of the right to vote.”
Anthony P. Ashton, senior associate general counsel at the NAACP, called the decision "a critical step in protecting the rights of voters who rely on the timely delivery of mail-in ballots to participate in our democracy."
Ashton continued:
The proposed USPS changes would have created unnecessary and unlawful barriers, in direct violation of the USPS’ mandate to prioritize election mail. Those barriers could have disproportionately harmed Black voters, who are more likely to rely on mail voting due to long-standing inequities in access. Put simply, the use of mail-in voting helps reduce voter intimidation at the polls and election day dirty tricks. This decision makes clear that access to the ballot cannot be tied to arbitrary requirements. The NAACP will continue to hold this government accountable when it attempts to undermine fair and equal access to the electoral process.
Wednesday's order—from a judge who's been appointed to various positions by Republican and Democratic presidents throughout his career—is the latest in a string of federal court rulings against Trump's attacks on voting rights, crowned by Monday's Watson v. Republican National Committee US Supreme Court decision, in which the justices affirmed that states may count ballots received after Election Day if they were postmarked in time.
Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts sided with Democratic state attorneys who challenged Trump's March 2025 executive order that requires Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, while another judge in the same district blocked parts of the president's March 2026 order, which included the USPS directive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Victory for Voters,' Supreme Court Rejects Trump-GOP Attack on Mailed Ballots
"At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
Jun 29, 2026
In a surprise blow to President Donald Trump's intensifying assault on democracy in the lead-up to the November midterms, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can decide to count ballots received after Election Day as long as they were postmarked in time.
Although the high court's right-wing supermajority has handed Trump various victories over his two terms, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's three liberals for the 5-4 decision, which was welcomed by advocates for Americans with disabilities, military families, the elderly, and others who choose to vote by mail.
While over half of US states allow at least some ballots received after Election Day to be counted, in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC challenged a Mississippi law that requires ballots to be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.
Good news that SCOTUS preserved mail ballot grace periods but very disturbing that 4 justices led by Alito amplified Trump's conspiracies about mail voting, including debunked claims of "voter fraud" www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Ari Berman (@ariberman.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Following oral arguments in March, the ideologically split majority found that "nothing in the federal election day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day," with Barrett—one of three justices appointed by Trump—delivering the majority opinion. She stressed that "we cannot add to the words Congress chose."
In a statement cheering the decision, Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in this case with Protect Democracy, said that "all voters, no matter how they cast their ballot, deserve the freedom to make their voices heard. This is a cornerstone of American democracy. And access to vote-by-mail, along with early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters."
Robert Weiner, the Voting Rights Project director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—which also submitted an amicus brief in this case and is suing over Trump's executive order on mail-in voting—celebrated that the ruling "rejects yet another attempt to prevent eligible voters from casting their votes and having them counted."
"Our democracy is stronger when more people, not less, can participate," declared Weiner, encouraging all US voters to "check the rules in your state," and anyone voting absentee "to mail their ballots early and confirm they were received."
Retired Amb. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that "this ruling respects state authority over election administration and prevents needless confusion for voters and election officials. At a time when the Roberts Court has too often made it harder for Americans to exercise their rights, today's decision is an important and welcome exception."
US Marine Corps veteran and Vet Voice Foundation CEO Janessa Goldbeck called the decision "a victory for every American who follows the rules, mails their ballot on time, and deserves to have their vote counted," while also highlighting that absentee voting is common among troops and their families.
"For service members stationed around the world, military spouses, veterans, and other Americans who rely on voting by mail, this ruling recognizes a simple principle: Voters should not lose their voice because of circumstances beyond their control," Goldbeck said.
As Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, pointed out, older voters also often vote by mail. He said that "for generations, states have adopted practical election rules that reflect the realities of mail delivery, protect the right to vote, and meet the needs of their citizens. The court's decision means that voters in the 14 states that provide a grace period for regular mail ballots, and the 29 states which allow additional time for at least some mail voters, including military and overseas voters, can breathe a little easier."
"Our alliance members in Mississippi proudly joined this case to defend the constitutional right to vote. We have always maintained that no eligible voter who casts a ballot in a timely manner should have that vote tossed out because of circumstances they cannot control," he added. "We will continue fighting to protect every eligible voter's right to have a ballot cast in a timely manner."
Among the older voters who have recently voted by mail is 80-year-old Trump, noted Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón—who applauded the new ruling as "a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves."
"Now, it's on Congress to pass long-overdue nationwide protections for voters," she asserted. "Common Cause will mobilize our one million members to make sure Congress hears voters loud and clear: national voting protections now."
Donald Trump spent years attacking voting by mail—even as he voted by mail himself.Then he asked the Supreme Court to throw out laws protecting your right to vote.The Court said no.
[image or embed]
— JB Pritzker (@jbpritzker.bsky.social) June 29, 2026 at 11:07 AM
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, and Trump continues to pressure lawmakers to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act requiring proof of US citizenship to register and photo ID to vote in federal elections. Given Democratic opposition to the bill and the GOP's slim Senate majority, passage would require working around the filibuster.
Democratic leaders on Monday joined voting rights advocates in celebrating the Supreme Court's new ruling but also emphasized that, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), "as the midterm elections approach, Trump and his allies are working overtime to silence Americans' votes."
"Senate Democrats will continue to do everything we can to protect free and fair elections, where everyone's voice is heard," he vowed.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said that "the DNC is proud to have stood with the state of Mississippi to defeat the RNC's latest attack on Americans’ voting rights," and "Trump and Republicans are attacking our elections and trying to rig the system in their favor because they know the American people are ready to reject their chaos and corruption this November."
He, too, pledged that "the DNC will remain vigilant and use every tool at our disposal to protect every eligible voter's access to the ballot box."
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State Chair Cisco Aguilar said that "my attendance at the oral arguments for Watson v. RNC in March was a demonstration of Nevada's commitment to protecting mail voting and ensuring that every eligible voter can cast a ballot in the way that works best for them."
"Democratic secretaries of state have repeatedly said that the Constitution is clear: States decide how their elections are run. Today's ruling shows they were right," Aguilar continued. "This ruling should also be a warning to the president that the letter of the law still holds weight with the Supreme Court."
"Despite this win, the right to vote remains more under threat this year than ever before," he added. "Democratic secretaries of state will continue to be on the frontlines of democracy, fighting to protect the rights of all Americans to legally cast their ballots and have confidence that their votes will be counted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let False Claims of Fraud Make It Harder to Vote
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could overturn grace periods for mail-in ballots, and the Trump administration targets mail-in voting as well, it's important to refute false claims about mail ballots and misreadings of election laws.
Jun 26, 2026
The Supreme Court is set to decide a case that could overturn laws in 30 states that provide grace periods, which allow counting mail ballots received after Election Day but sent on time.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has issued two executive orders seeking to displace states’ mail voting laws, including one that attempts to deny federal funds to states that do not reject mail ballots received after Election Day. (The Brennan Center and other voting rights groups have challenged both orders in court.)
These efforts seek to undermine state policies for when mail ballots may be counted. They are centered on false claims about mail ballots and misreading of election law and are occurring as states pass restrictive voting laws—some of which even rely on the executive orders or the ongoing litigation.
While many states have expanded access to mail voting since 2020, between 2020 and 2025, 27 states enacted laws restricting mail voting. These restrictions have followed false claims by Trump and his allies about fraudulent mail ballots. Indeed, Trump made similar claims due to ballot processing times following California’s recent primary. These false claims and restrictive laws around mail voting persist even though the overwhelming evidence shows that it continues to be safe and secure.
Lawmakers who focus on voters when enacting election laws recognize that some face unique hurdles when accessing the ballot box.
Laws restricting mail voting include laws eliminating grace periods. Notably, between 2020 and 2025, at least seven states, including Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Utah, have either tightened the deadline for returning a mail ballot or blocked officials from accepting mail ballots arriving after Election Day. At least four states have done so in the past year, including two that did so after the executive orders or Supreme Court litigation.
North Dakota eliminated its grace period, which counted mail ballots so long as they were postmarked by the day before Election Day, in April, shortly after Trump’s March 2025 executive order on voting. Among other things, that order illegally directs the Election Assistance Commission, an independent federal agency, to condition funding on a state’s adherence to an Election Day ballot-receipt deadline, even if the ballots were submitted on time under state law. Just three weeks after Trump issued the order, state legislators amended an elections bill to include a new section “addressing the new executive order” by eliminating the state’s grace period.
Then, in December 2025, Ohio passed a law eliminating its grace period, which counted ballots postmarked before Election Day and received by the fourth day after (a period that Ohio had already shortened in 2022 from the 10th day after the election). One of the 2025 bill’s sponsors pointed to Trump’s executive order. But Ohio lawmakers also made their decision while the Supreme Court case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, had yet to be argued, let alone decided.
That case began in early 2024 under a sham legal theory: that century-old federal “Election Day” laws, which require states to have presidential and congressional elections on the first Tuesday of November, preempt Mississippi’s policy of accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days thereafter. Those federal laws do not set the date by which states must receive and count ballots, and a federal district court rejected the lawsuit. But in March 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling in a deeply flawed opinion that inaccurately described the plain text, historical practice, and congressional history of the “Election Day” laws.
The same week in November 2025 that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Watson, Ohio’s Legislative Budget Office cited the Fifth Circuit’s flawed reasoning in its analysis for lawmakers. By the following month, Ohio had eliminated the state’s grace period except for military and overseas voters. (Mississippi, for its part, recently enacted a “trigger law” that, if the court overturns Mississippi’s current grace period, will require mail ballots to be received a full day before Election Day.)
To be sure, North Dakota and Ohio lawmakers also pointed to other states that do not provide grace periods. But North Dakota and Ohio’s passing of restrictive voting laws following a contested executive order and grace period-related litigation, respectively, shows the damage that the executive branch and courts alike can cause by elevating debunked legal theories.
In contrast with the executive order and Watson litigation, multiple states have exercised their authority to develop mail voting policies under a different approach: addressing voters’ needs. Today, at least 14 states, the District of Columbia, and three other US territories provide a grace period for all voters. At least 16 states provide a grace period specifically for military and overseas voters. And Montana provides a grace period specifically for users of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, which serves as a backup ballot for military and overseas voters.
During the Civil War, officials in states including Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island gave military voters additional time after Election Day to have their ballots arrive so they could be counted. In 2010, US Postal Service delays resulted in over 26,000 mail ballots arriving too late to be counted in California’s general election. This led California to adopt a three-day grace period for all voters, which the legislature lengthened to 17 days during the Covid-19 pandemic and shortened to seven days following the pandemic. Texas decided in 2005 to accept ballots postmarked by Election Day and received the day after. It added longer deadlines in 2017: five days after Election Day for civilian ballots and six days for military service members deployed abroad and their families. And some states, like Alabama and Colorado, that have adopted grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters have done so to build upon protections embedded in the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
Lawmakers who focus on voters when enacting election laws recognize that some face unique hurdles when accessing the ballot box. As the Brennan Center and co-counsel Covington & Burling noted in a friend-of-the-court brief in Watson, overseas civilian and military voters can face mail delays that prevent ballots from arriving on time, through no fault of the voter. Rural voters, like many in largely rural Alaska, can be wholly dependent on mail voting to participate in elections. So too can voters with disabilities, or certain communities of color that may rely on mail voting as an effective alternative to in-person voting. Indeed, recent research on the rescission of Ohio’s grace period suggests that thousands of valid votes in the 2024 election would not have been counted under the new rules.
Court decisions sanctioning Trump’s unconstitutional executive orders or the misleading claims underpinning Watson could add to the burdens some voters already face. But even if Trump’s executive orders fail and the Supreme Court upholds the grace period at issue, policymakers and advocates should still be concerned about how lawmakers can turn the false claims behind executive orders and litigation into restrictive state voting laws.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Yeah, That’s Illegal’: USPS Chief Says States Won't Receive Mail Ballots Unless They Hand Voter Rolls to Trump
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail. That's unacceptable," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
Jun 25, 2026
Postmaster General David Steiner drew the ire of Democratic senators and voting rights advocates on Wednesday when he said that the US Postal Service would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand their voter files to the Trump administration.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the panels ranking member, asked Steiner if USPS would deliver ballots in a state whose government had refused the Trump administration's request for access to its absentee voter list.
"Under our proposed regulation, no," Steiner replied. "We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Peters responded by accusing USPS of creating a rule that "coerces" states into handing their voter files to the federal government even though they are under no legal obligation to do so.
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail," Peters said. "That's unacceptable."
PETERS: Yes or no, if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER: No.
PETERS: So the proposed rule basically coerces states to hand over their… pic.twitter.com/5bnJb5Atnr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2026
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also sparred with Steiner during the hearing, informing the postmaster general that USPS had absolutely no role to play in determining how states conduct their elections.
"You run the Postal Service, you deliver the mail," Blumenthal said. "You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should... This proposed rule is bogus."
Blumenthal demanded Steiner commit to deliver all mail-in ballots to voters in his state regardless of whether it complied with the Trump administration's demands, but the postmaster general said he would not make such a commitment.
"Our proposed rule is subject to litigation," Steiner told him. "We'll see how that all turns out."
"Well, I guess we will see," Blumenthal replied, "but it will probably be in court."
The Founding Fathers didn’t envision USPS reviewing voting ballots or registration. Trump’s Postmaster General refuses to commit to deliver mail-in-ballots without fulfilling Trump’s new bogus, sham review. pic.twitter.com/V3jiBMyGOY
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 24, 2026
Some observers reacted with shock to Steiner's willingness to go along with Trump's latest election-rigging scheme, which they said was patently unconstitutional.
"Yeah, that's illegal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The Post Office can’t refuse to deliver mail to try and get policy concessions."
"We have a Postmaster General who should not be in any position of trust or influence," commented political scientist Norman Ornstein, "a disgraceful traitor to American values."
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signaled his state would challenge the proposed USPS rule.
"Illinois expanded vote-by-mail because we believe voting should be easier, not harder," Pritzker wrote. "Now, Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General is threatening to withhold mail ballots unless states turn over voter rolls. That's not election security. It’s voter suppression."
Political scientist Robert E. Kelly argued that Trump's attack on mail-in voting was a "deeply malign gimmick which makes it so hard to accommodate MAGA within the US political order."
"No one thought to use the mail as a partisan weapon," Kelly wrote. "The laws and norms around mail are poorly known, because no one ever thought to try this gambit before. But now, because Trump insists on politicizing the bureaucracy, this whole thing will go to court just months before the election."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Virtual Elimination of Mail-In Voting’ Feared Under Trump Postal Service Order
"This is not in the president’s power. It's absolutely clear in the Constitution—states run elections," said Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read.
Jun 10, 2026
President Donald Trump's executive order restricting the distribution of ballots by the US Postal Service could effectively end the ability to vote by mail if it isn't struck down, experts told CNN on Wednesday.
The order, which was signed in March, instructs the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. It is being challenged by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general, who are urging courts to block the order before it potentially disenfranchises eligible voters.
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows told CNN that, unless courts intervene quickly, "you will see a virtual elimination of mail-in voting."
Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read explained to CNN that he believes the Trump order is patently unlawful given that it usurps states' powers outlined in the US Constitution to run their own elections.
"This is not in the president’s power," Read said. "It's absolutely clear in the Constitution—states run elections."
Although Trump-appointed US District Court Judge Carl Nichols last month declined to block the president's executive order, congressional Democrats are appealing the case at the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are seeking an expedited process that will result in a ruling before the fall.
The legal challenge brought by Democratic attorneys general is currently before a federal judge in Boston.
Without fast action, congressional Democrats warned in a Monday court filing, "millions of American voters’ sensitive personal data will be amassed into inaccurate and unlawful databases and USPS will engage in unprecedented interference with state mail voting programs."
The executive order attacking mail-in voting is just one of many ways the Trump administration has been trying to meddle in the election process ahead of the 2026 midterms.
According to a report from Democracy Docket, a Tuesday court filing by the US Department of Justice argued that states have the power to purge voter rolls at any time ahead of an election and do not have to abide by the 90-day "quiet period" established in the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
As the law has been traditionally interpreted, states cannot trim voter rolls less than 90 days before elections so that people affected by the changes have sufficient time to file challenges and potentially restore their eligibility.
However, the Trump DOJ argued that the provision establishing the 90-day period "would not prevent a state like Georgia from investigating and removing ineligible people in an individualized fashion" close to an election "if the United States alerted the state of the possibility that particular individuals on their rolls were ineligible to vote."
As explained by Democracy Docket, this interpretation of the law could let the federal government create lists of voters to be purged and then "pressure states to carry out the removals individually—potentially weakening one of the most important federal safeguards against last-minute disenfranchisement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Postal Service Sued for Advancing Trump’s ‘Disgraceful’ Assault on Mail-In Voters
"That this administration would direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots is shameful."
Jun 04, 2026
A leading civil rights organization on Wednesday accused the US Postal Service of unlawful complicity in President Donald Trump's assault on mail-in voting, which he launched in late March with an alarming executive order that is facing its own legal challenges.
With a new legal motion filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the NAACP is challenging rules the Postal Service unveiled last week that would require states to notify USPS "of the individuals to whom they are mailing a mail-in or absentee ballot." The rules would also "identify new standards for the envelope design and review for outbound and return ballot envelopes."
The NAACP's filing—which reignites a pandemic-era legal fight—warns that under the proposed rule, "USPS would refuse to transmit mail-in ballots in states that did not use specific envelopes with specific codes, and would refuse to deliver ballots for voters not included on a state-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List."
That would violate a previous USPS agreement, reached in 2021, to prioritize "timely delivery of election mail" and run afoul of federal law, the motion argues, calling for a swift injunction to stop the Postal Service from implementing the rules.
“The proposed rule manifests USPS’ intent to disregard its commitment to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “This all is part of a coordinated effort by this Administration to create chaos and confusion in our elections, which creates particular dangers for Black voters who are already at the greatest risk of suffering discrimination in voting. The attempt to usurp the right of eligible voters to cast mail-in ballots is directly contrary to the legally enforceable agreement the parties reached in this case, and to USPS’ obligations under federal law. We are confident it will be rejected by the courts.”
Allison Zieve, director of Public Citizen Litigation Group—which joined LDF in filing the suit on behalf of the NAACP—said it is "shameful" that the Trump administration would "direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots."
"And that USPS would allow itself to be used for political purposes to advance the president’s irrational objection to mail-in voting is disgraceful, unlawful, and contrary to the commitments it made to settle our [2020] litigation," Zieve added.
The proposed USPS rules stem from an executive order that Trump issued on March 31, instructing the agency to obtain from states "a list of voters eligible to vote in a federal election in such state to whom the state intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS." Trump directed his handpicked postmaster general, David Steiner, to advance "provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual" who is not included on state mail-in ballot participation lists.
Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, DC declined to immediately block the president's executive order. But another federal judge in Boston "sharply questioned" Trump's order during a hearing for a similar yet separate legal challenge earlier this week.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the latter case said in a statement after Tuesday's hearing that "the Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order."
"Together with our courageous clients, we’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop further chaos in our elections, uphold the rule of law, and protect the millions of citizens who rely on mail-in voting, including people with disabilities, students, rural voters, and the elderly," the attorneys said. "We won't let the Trump administration continue to trample on the fundamental right to vote.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Journalists Can Cover the Midterms to Help Protect Their Legitimacy
As President Donald Trump continues to insist he won the 2020 election, reporters must keep their readers informed about the 2026 voting process and press all candidates on whether or not they will accept the voters' decision.
Apr 10, 2026
A few weeks before the 2020 presidential election, I wrote “An Open Letter to My Old Tribe,” urging “every reporter who is covering this election at any level” to focus on a crucial question—whether the public would trust the election procedure and the losing candidate would accept the result as legitimate. “It does not seem an exaggeration,” I wrote then, “to say that the future of American democracy, perhaps its very survival, depends on the answer.”
More than five years later, with less than seven months to go before the midterm elections, that question is before us again, but in far starker terms than I could have imagined in 2020. So, here’s an updated letter to the media tribe I once belonged to, with suggestions broadly similar to those I made five years ago, but with a far sharper sense of urgency, even fear.
Here’s my first suggestion: Reporters in 2026 need to pay more attention to and offer more forceful coverage of President Donald Trump’s continuing insistence that Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 was fraudulent and that year’s election illegitimate. (As recently as March 15, he tweeted this completely false allegation: “With time, it [the 2020 election] has been conclusively proven to be stolen.”)
While Trump keeps repeating that long-discredited claim, journalists should not treat his falsehoods as “old news” that no longer requires detailed coverage anymore. They should instead consider it an important and newsworthy story right now. Instead of briefly repeating a shorthand conclusion (“false” or “without evidence”) after a quote from the president, they should take a few more lines of type or minutes of air time to remind readers or listeners of the facts that show irrefutably why they should never believe his words. After all, Trump’s “rigged election” claims haven’t been validated in a single one of 64 court cases—that’s right, 64!—challenging the election results, or in any official investigation or recount.
Ask every Republican candidate on your state’s ballot to answer this question: Do you really believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and lost only because of massive vote fraud?
On that point, reporters can cite an authoritative 2022 report, “Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case That Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Election,” written by a panel of authors including two former Republican senators, a lawyer who served as solicitor-general under President George W. Bush, and five other prominent conservatives. After exhaustively reviewing every judicial proceeding and post-election probe in six states where election fraud was alleged, the authors concluded that “Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case.” Their definitive verdict on the overall issue was: “There is absolutely no evidence of fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election on the magnitude necessary to shift the result in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct.”
(Journalists might also pass on this thought from David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, who, in a recent podcast, suggested that all 2020 election conspiracy theories rest on this dubious premise: “Democrats, being out of power, somehow managed a conspiracy against a sitting president, who controlled the entire government, to steal an election from him… and that four years later when those same Democrats held every lever of federal power, they forgot to do it again.”)
Reporters should also remind their audience of another important fact: Trump’s claims of fraud in the 2020 election were emphatically refuted by Mike Pence, his vice president, and Bill Barr, his attorney general, both of whom publicly broke with the president, strongly denied his allegations, and unequivocally recognized that Joe Biden had been legitimately elected.k
In that connection, here’s a related suggestion for reporters: Ask every Republican candidate on your state’s ballot to answer this question: Do you really believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and lost only because of massive vote fraud? Press as hard as you can for an on-the-record, yes-or-no answer, and if you don’t get one, keep pushing. If a candidate says yes or evades the question, follow up with questions like: “What evidence do you have? How do you explain that those charges were not verified in a vote recount or in a single one of more than 60 judicial proceedings? Were judges in 64 courtrooms across six states all part of a nefarious conspiracy against Donald Trump, or do you have any other explanation?”
Report on the Process, Not Just the Arguments
Journalists in 2026 also have a much broader task: to keep their audiences informed on the details of the election process and the ongoing efforts to undermine its legitimacy. Covering those themes systematically and proactively will not be easy at a time when the headlines are bound to be filled with other explosive issues: a major war in the Middle East (and possibly beyond); the ongoing bitter controversy about the Trump administration’s chaotic immigration enforcement campaign that led to the violent deaths of two US citizens; the continuing effects of drastic staff reductions in federal agencies that have eliminated or significantly reduced government services and benefits for millions of Americans; and a long list of other divisive subjects. But the threat to public trust in the election process poses a clear and present danger to the principles, traditions, and values of the American political system, and news organizations need to adapt their campaign coverage accordingly.
So, here’s a suggestion (one I made in that earlier letter years ago) to reporters, editors, and news directors across the country:
Starting now, treat the election process in your state as a significant running news story. Make it a separate beat, alongside the traditional coverage of the reactions of candidates and voters. Touch base regularly with local and state election administrators. Learn (and then tell your readers or listeners) the details: how voters are registered, how and where the voting will be conducted, and exactly how their votes will be counted. Cultivate sources and regularly report what local officials are doing (or not doing) to ensure a credible election. Meanwhile, before any votes are cast or counted, press candidates and their minions to state exactly what they would define as evidence of miscounting or fraud, what they would consider grounds for contesting the outcomes of local or other races, and how they envisage conducting those contests—standards for which they can then be held accountable if they do end up disputing the official results.
Don’t cover such subjects only when they arise in a partisan debate where the traditional role of journalists is to report both sides (candidate A says the ballot count will be falsified or ineligible voters will be allowed to vote, candidate B or election administrator C says the voting will be legally conducted and the count will be accurate). Instead, monitor and regularly update your audience on what’s actually happening. Track problems as they appear and solutions as they are proposed, discussed, and adopted.
For example, on the controversy about voting by mail—an issue now before the Supreme Court—don’t just report the opposing arguments and leave it to readers and listeners to choose which side to believe. Give them the knowledge to decide for themselves. Don’t wait for partisans on one side or the other to bring up the subject. Take the initiative with a story detailing the rules in your state that define who can vote by mail and how to do so. When the time comes, report how many mail-in ballots have been distributed and track how many have been returned. Explain in detail how those ballots are stored and protected and when and how they will be opened and counted—facts that will let news consumers reach their own conclusion about the practice and whether it’s risky or not.
Reliable Sources
A useful resource for journalists covering such issues is the nonprofit news organization Votebeat, which focuses exclusively on covering how elections are conducted and distributes its articles at no cost to readers or local and national news outlets. Founded in 2020, Votebeat has reporters based in five states (Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) that were centers of controversy in that year’s election. On the national level, in 2024 it operated an “Expert Desk” where journalists could ask voting-related questions and get knowledgeable answers from a panel of nearly 100 election administrators, cybersecurity experts, attorneys specializing in election law, and other professionals. It plans a similar program to assist journalists covering this year’s election. Reporters or anyone else concerned about election issues can sign up here to regularly receive its reports.
A variety of other organizations across the political spectrum can answer media queries on election procedures and management. Here are a few more groups whose work reporters should follow and contact if needed:
- Voting Rights Lab, “a campaign hub designed to supercharge the fight against voter suppression.” It operates the Election Policy Tracker, which “analyzes voting and election laws across all 50 states and the District of Columbia and provides near-real time analysis of election-related legislation pending across the country.” The tracker is designed to support “policy experts, advocates, researchers, legislators, and anyone on the front lines of the pro-democracy movement with critical information about the laws and legislation shaping our elections.”
- Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group bringing together “conservatives, moderates, and progressives” who share a common goal: “preventing American democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government.”
- The Center for Election Innovation & Research, whose stated goal is “to restore trust in the American election system and promote election procedures that encourage participation and ensure election integrity and security.” (David Becker, the group’s executive director, is quoted earlier in this article.)
- Defending Democracy Together, an organization created by “lifelong conservatives and Republicans” to defend “democratic norms, values, and institutions” and oppose “abuses of power that threaten to undermine the integrity of US elections, federal agencies, and the Republican Party as a whole.” Its list of directors includes William Kristol, founder of the right-wing magazine The Weekly Standard, and Mona Charen, a staff member and speechwriter in Ronald Reagan’s White House.
- Republicans for Voting Rights, committed to defending “the accessibility, integrity, and competitiveness of American elections” and to oppose Republicans “pushing for more restrictive voting laws designed to support unfounded accusations that the [2020] election was stolen and the results were illegitimate.”
And one last suggestion for journalists covering this year’s election: Go down the ballot in your state and ask every candidate running for the Senate or House of Representatives or any significant state or local office for an unequivocal on-the-record commitment to respect the voters’ decision, whatever it might be. If any candidates waffle or decline to answer, don’t just leave it at that and go on to the next story. Instead, keep asking them (and their political allies, campaign organizers, and spokespeople) the same question and press them to explain exactly why they are dodging the issue.
I ended my 2020 letter with this closing paragraph:
Journalists alone will not win the fight to protect the legitimacy of this election, but they can make an important contribution—perhaps the most important since reporters covering the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s helped make the country confront the realities and the profound injustice of the segregation era. In the coming weeks, it will be absolutely vital for journalists everywhere, in every medium, to recognize the challenge and greatly intensify their efforts in rising to it. The stakes could not be higher.
Sadly enough, in 2026, those words ring even more pertinently than when I wrote them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats File Sweeping Lawsuit to Stop 'Unlawful' Trump Attack on Mail-In Voting
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power."
Apr 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's executive order placing restrictions on mail-in voting in the US is now facing a sweeping lawsuit from the Democratic Party.
In a complaint filed Wednesday with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the Democrats argued that Trump "has tried again and again to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage," this time going after mail voting, which he has baselessly claimed cost him the 2020 presidential election.
The Democrats contended, however, that Trump has no constitutional authority to single-handedly rewrite election laws, noting that the US Constitution explicitly gave states the power to administer their own elections.
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power," the complaint states. "They recognized the menace it would pose to ordered liberty and the ways in which it would corrode self-government like an acid... They left most election authority with the states, permitted state regulations to be displaced only upon the agreement of both chambers of Congress, and established an independent judiciary to repel threats to individual rights."
The complaint then dives into the contents of Trump's order, which it says "seeks to impose radical changes to the manner and conditions under which citizens may cast absentee or mail-in ballots," and would "imminently threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters."
Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Trump is asking the US Postal Service to "take actions unrelated to the agency's statutory mandate that run roughshod over established protections for voters who rely on the mail to exercise their fundamental right" to vote in US elections.
Given that the order doesn't "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," the complaint continues, "it is an unlawful exercise of authority that must be declared invalid."
A joint statement released by Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), accused Trump of trying to restrict mail-in voting as a last-ditch effort to stop voters from ousting his Republican congressional allies.
"The American people are fed up with Republicans’ price-spiking, healthcare-gutting agenda and are ready to vote them out," they said. "That’s why Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities, and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it."
Shortly after the Democrats filed their lawsuit, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund filed a complaint against the Trump executive order on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative, and Arizona Students’ Association.
Danielle Lang, vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, said that the suit was necessary to block Trump's "unprecedented" effort to "unconstitutionally assert total authority over our elections."
"Attempts to command the US Department of Homeland Security to work with independent agencies on efforts to disenfranchise eligible voters... are simply unconstitutional and violate long-standing protections for Americans," Lang added.
Elections expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, argued in a Wednesday op-ed for Slate that lawsuits against Trump's executive order would probably prove successful and that it "likely will be found unconstitutional by courts."
However, Hasen also warned that the order could still create enough chaos and uncertainty to throw the outcome of close elections into doubt.
"Trump is engaging in election denialism theater," Hasen explained. "It makes voters of all sides mistrust the election process and the virtues of democracy. It convinces his supporters that Democrats have to cheat to win, something that will come in handy should Democrats take back control of the House in November with the intent of beginning investigations and potentially impeachment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Threats to the Post Office Are Threats to Democracy and Affordability
The decision to downgrade postal service standards and eliminate evening collections increases the risk of disenfranchising voters and raising costs for families already struggling to pay their bills.
Mar 19, 2026
For over 250 years, Americans have relied on the United States Postal Service for timely processing of their mail, no matter the conditions. After we dropped it in a box or gave it to a letter carrier, we could count on our mail being postmarked on that date so that our bills and tax returns aren’t late and our election ballots are counted.
Unfortunately, this trust is now increasingly risky—since we can no longer rely on USPS to postmark mail on the day it’s collected.
As part of former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s broader cost-cutting and restructuring plan, the Postal Service has stopped its practice of picking up mail at the end of every day from all post offices. This means your ballot or bill payment could sit there until the following morning or even longer before being postmarked at a huge processing center.
This gap between mail collection and postmarking is particularly concerning for rural residents, for two main reasons.
To maintain public trust, USPS should restore same-day postmarking and do whatever it takes to protect voting rights for all Americans.
First, the decision to eliminate evening collections applies only to post offices located more than 50 miles from a regional processing center. This raises strong concerns about whether a federal agency with an obligation to provide universal service to all Americans is actively discriminating against rural communities.
Second, rural residents rely especially heavily on our public Postal Service for voting and paying bills. During the 2024 general election, USPS delivered more than 99 million ballots to and from voters. The mail-in option makes voting much easier for rural residents who live long distances from their polling place.
Half of rural county polling sites serve an area larger than 62 square miles, while half of urban polling sites serve an area of less than 2 square miles. Vote by mail is particularly important for seniors, who are more likely to have mobility issues that make it difficult to cast their ballots in person. Americans age 65 or older make up about 20% of all rural residents, compared to just 16% of urban residents.
Older Americans are also more likely to drop a check in the mail rather than paying bills online. According to a USPS survey, 18% of households headed by someone 55 or older paid their bills by mail, compared to just 7% of those aged 18 to 34.
A key reason many rural residents use USPS for bill paying: the digital divide. An Institute for Policy Studies analysis of the 15 most rural states found that only one (North Dakota) had a broadband access rate higher than the national average in 2024. More than 20% of the population lacked broadband access in seven of these states (Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Iowa).
The decision to downgrade postal service standards and eliminate evening collections increases the risk of disenfranchising voters and raising costs for families already struggling to pay their bills.
These problems are particularly serious as the nation heads into a tense election season. To maintain public trust, USPS should restore same-day postmarking and do whatever it takes to protect voting rights for all Americans, whether they live in the most remote mountain village or the largest city.
Our democracy depends on a strong public Postal Service.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy