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
us postal service
House Dem Calls for Removal of Postmaster General for Turning USPS Into 'Instrument of Voter Suppression'
Postmaster General David Steiner has said that USPS would not deliver ballots in states that don’t hand over their voter rolls to the Trump administration for purging under a since-blocked executive order.
Aug 03, 2026
A Democratic congressman is calling for Postmaster General David Steiner to be removed from office for allowing the US Postal Service to turn into what he called "a partisan instrument of voter suppression" for President Donald Trump.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), a senior Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to Steiner and members of the USPS board of governors on Monday criticizing the postmaster general for refusing to clarify if he intends to follow an executive order signed by Trump in March ordering the Postal Service to halt the delivery of mail-in ballots in states that do not turn over lists of voters to be checked against a federal citizenship list.
A federal judge has blocked the administration from implementing the order's provisions that create federal citizenship lists and allow USPS to condition ballot delivery on states submitting voter information, ruling that Trump had usurped powers belonging to the states and Congress.
Last week, the administration and a group of 12 Republican states filed emergency applications asking the US Supreme Court to allow the order to take effect prior to November’s midterms.
Krishnamoorthi said that this filing contains "a troubling contradiction." It argues that Trump had merely issued “general policy guidance” to agencies rather than concrete directives, and that it's therefore premature for courts to rule on its constitutionality.
"USPS's apparent implementation efforts over the past four months tell a different story," Krishnamoorthi wrote.
He pointed out that USPS had sent the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review and had begun to create a federal ballot portal, state voter participation lists, and procedures on accepting ballots.
Steiner, meanwhile, said during a hearing in June—while the order was facing litigation but had not yet been struck down—that he fully intended to block mail-in ballots from states that don't hand over their voter rolls.
Krishnamoorthi also wrote that the administration's argument before the Supreme Court that blocking the order would cause "irreparable harm" does not withstand factual scrutiny.
He noted that noncitizen voting, which the administration claims the order is meant to prevent, is not only already a federal crime, but exceedingly rare. One analysis by the Brookings Institution last year found that in general elections between 2016-22, there were approximately four instances of mail-in voting fraud per 10 million mail ballots cast—about 0.000043% of them.
"The administration has not produced evidence of fraud on a scale capable of affecting an election outcome," Krishnamoorthi wrote. "Disenfranchising millions of eligible voters—including military personnel serving overseas, seniors, rural voters, individuals with disabilities, and working families—is not a proportionate response to fraud rates of this magnitude."
He also wrote that Steiner had repeatedly refused his requests for information about how USPS has implemented the executive order and whether it is still doing so despite the court's order to stop.
"A postmaster general who will not tell Congress whether his agency is complying with a federal court order, and who will not appear to answer for that silence, has already forfeited the trust the office requires," wrote Krishnamoorthi. "I am therefore calling on the Postal Service Board of Governors to remove you as Postmaster General, and I will urge my colleagues on the committee to join that call."
There is already evidence that a voter citizenship registry run by the Trump administration could disenfranchise lawful voters.
In June, a federal judge found that states using an expanded version of the federal government's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, which is used by the federal government to track immigration status, led local voting officials to wrongly cancel the voter registrations of naturalized citizens.
In Travis County, Texas, an investigation found that 25% of the people flagged as "noncitizen matches" had already proven their US citizenship.
Jasleen Singh, a senior counsel and manager in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, wrote in June that the administration "has been engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine elections."
"Part of that involves collecting state voter files and using federal data sources to lend pseudolegitimacy to false claims of widespread fraud," she said. "While there may be valid ways to use federal data to support election officials’ efforts to keep voter rolls accurate and up to date, there are notable shortcomings in such data, and it may be misused to spread misinformation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Win for Voters,' Another Federal Court Blocks Trump Attack on Mailed Ballots
A majority of the three-judge appellate panel called part of the president's March executive order "an unprecedented federal incursion into states’ exclusive power to determine voter eligibility."
Jul 25, 2026
A federal appellate panel on Saturday rejected the Trump administration's request to lift a lower court's injunction blocking the US Postal Service from enforcing President Donald Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of Republicans' broader attack on voting rights.
A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against a motion by the administration seeking a pause on US District Judge Indira Talwani's June order blocking major portions of Trump's directive, which is aimed at restricting postal voting, including by directing the USPS to ensure that mailed ballots have unique barcodes and envelope logos.
"Under the Constitution, state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections," Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman—both appointed by former President Joe Biden—wrote in a joint opinion. "In the spring of 2026, President Trump issued an executive order with nationwide effects on how state and local officials can administer federal elections, including the upcoming primary and general elections in September and November. In particular, the executive order directed substantial involvement by the United States Postal Service in deciding which ballots sent to and from voters would be delivered."
Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, partially dissented from the majority. The decision applies to the 23 states and District of Columbia that filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order.
The ruling also focuses on the executive order’s threats to criminally punish any state or local officials who refuse to comply. Under the order, the USPS would only send mail ballots to states that send their unredacted voter files to [the US Department of Homeland Security], which would approve voter eligibility via a national voter registration database. This is an unprecedented federal incursion into states’ exclusive power to determine voter eligibility as deemed by the US Constitution.
Saturday's ruling comes just over three weeks after Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia halted the USPS' implementation of Trump's executive order. Sullivan 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.
That decision followed a June ruling by Chief US District Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts that blocked portions of the president's order requiring people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Trump's March order is part of a broader attack on voting rights that includes pushing an updated version of Republicans' so-called SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship and strict photo ID requirements to register to vote in federal elections. The legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives in February, is stalled in the narrowly split Senate, where it lacks the support of 60 lawmakers needed to avoid a Democrat filibuster.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
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
Judge Blocks 'Unconstitutional and Dangerous' Trump Order Designed to Derail Mail-In Voting
"The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state."
Jun 25, 2026
On the heels of a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts siding with Democratic state attorneys general who challenged President Donald Trump's executive order requiring Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, another judge in the same district on Thursday blocked key portions of a second Trump order attacking US elections.
In the latest decision, District Judge Indira Talwani struck down Section 2, which orders the US Department of Homeland Security to create "confirmed citizen lists" of eligible voters, as well as Section 3, which directs the US Postal Service to create rules to limit the mailing of ballots to voters not included on its own lists.
"The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections. Broadly, the Constitution vests the president with 'executive power' and commands him to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" wrote Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "Sections 2 and 3... are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers."
The judge also struck down Section 5, which requires the US Deparment of Justicee and all other executive agencies "with relevant authority" to "take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with federal law," plus mandates that states and localities "preserve, for a five-year-period, all records and materials—excluding ballots cast—evidencing participation in any federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carriers)." She found that this portion of the order "is merely precatory."
Several state attorneys general were involved in both of this week's cases, including New York Democrat Letitia James, who called Thursday's decision a "major victory" as well as a "critical step in defending the foundation of our democracy and protecting the sacred right to vote."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Thursday also cheered the back-to-back wins against the Republican president.
"Just yesterday, President Trump's first elections-related Executive Order was blocked. Now, his second elections-related executive Order has suffered the same fate, and rightfully so. As the federal judge wrote in today's decision, 'The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections.' Those powers are reserved to the states and Congress," Bonta said. "Democracy doesn't work on its own—it requires constant vigilance. And that's what my fellow attorneys general and I will continue to provide."
The AGs weren't alone in challenging Trump's order. 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 also filed suit, represented by the national and Massachusetts arms of the ACLU as well as Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in that case said in a joint statement that as Thursday's decision "makes clear, President Trump's executive order from March 2026 attempting to seize control of elections is unconstitutional and dangerous."
"This ruling is a critical step in preserving free and fair elections," they said. "The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state. The ruling also rightly recognizes that the US Postal Service has no authority to limit the distribution of mail ballots."
"The court has yet to rule on our request to block the executive order's provisions on mail voting on behalf of a nonpartisan coalition of voting rights groups," they noted. "The same reasoning underpinning today's decision should hold in our case. President Trump's unlawful executive order violates the separation of powers, threatens the integrity of our elections, and must be enjoined from taking effect in the upcoming primary and midterm elections."
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson signaled the administration will continue the fight, telling multiple media outlets that "President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of our elections. The president's executive order lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation."
Jackson also reiterated the administration's support for the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, saying that "President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to secure our elections for generations to come."
Trump on Wednesday canceled his planned signing ceremony for the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act "until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
In response, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) summarized: "Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum. He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
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
The Postmark Plot: The Latest GOP Strategy to Suppress Your Vote
Under a new Trump rule, instead of postmarking letters when they’re received, Post Offices will now postmark them when they get “processed,” which may happen days later, potentially impacting millions of mail-in ballots.
Jan 03, 2026
It’s not just a brand new year; it’s a midterm election year. And the stakes this coming November are mind-boggling, so, of course, Republicans are starting to do everything they can to rig the election.
Just a week ago, for example, President Donald Trump’s Postal Service changed the rules about getting your mail-in ballot postmarked so it’ll be counted. Instead of postmarking letters when they’re received, Post Offices will now postmark them when they get “processed,” which may happen days later.
In the 2024 presidential election, the feds estimated that around 104,000 mail-in ballots nationwide weren’t counted because they were postmarked late; with this change, the number this fall and for 2028 could be in the millions.
Meanwhile, Republican secretaries of state are enthusiastically purging voters from the rolls as they get ready for this fall. Remember, reporter and economist Greg Palast found, using official federal and state numbers, that in 2024:
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
You’d think we each have a right to vote, rather than voting being just a privilege that Republican-controlled states could take away in dozens of different ways.
Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled, for example, that we have a right to own a gun. As a result, before a state or local government can take away your gun, they must first go before a judge to prove the necessity of doing so.
But, Republicans on the court tell us, Republican secretaries of state can eliminate your right to vote without even telling you; how does that make sense?
After all, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution references “the right to vote at any election” and even says that any state that violates that right shall lose members of its congressional delegation as punishment.
The 19th Amendment references “the right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
The 24th Amendment starts, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…”
The 26th Amendment is all about “the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote…”
Additionally, the Constitution, in Article I, Section 4, says that Congress can make federal laws that overrule state laws restricting or regulating voting:
The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…
And, sure enough, Congress did just that in 1993 when it passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter Act because, among other things, it provided for the option of instant voter registration when a person gets a driver’s license in every state in the union.
Now known as 52 U.S. Code § 20501, this law of the land opens with:
The Congress finds that—
(1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right
(2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right and
(3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial minorities.
And it wasn’t a particularly contentious law when it was passed: every Democrat present in the Senate voted for it (Rockefeller missed the vote) as did all but two Republicans.
So how did we get from the Constitution repeatedly asserting a “right to vote” and Congress passing a law that unambiguously proclaims that right, to the current state of affairs where states regularly and methodically deprive citizens of their “right” to vote and instead claim that it’s merely a privilege?
As I lay out in The Hidden History of the War On Voting, much of the blame rests with the most conservative and regressive of our federal institutions, the Supreme Court.
The first real test of the NVRA came in 2018, when Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, John Husted, went on a voter-purge binge (that hit Black, student, and elderly neighborhoods particularly hard) and was sued by the A. Phillip Randolph Institute for violating Ohio citizens’ constitutional right to vote.
Republicans are pushing a full-blown authoritarian agenda, and they know it’s so unpopular that the only way they can get it through is to suppress the vote and thus rig the system.
In a bitter 5-4 decision, the Republican majority ruled in Husted v Randolph that purging voters because they failed to return a junk-mail-like postcard was entirely legal.
It’s a practice that was called “caging” back when Karl Rove’s guy was allegedly doing it, and it was illegal then but has, since that court ruling, spread to pretty much every Republican-controlled state in the nation.
They’ll identify a part of the state that they consider particularly “prone to fraud“—in other words, filled with a lot of Black and brown people—and mail postcards that look like junk mail into those precincts. When people failed to return them, they are automatically removed from the voting rolls. In most cases they don’t even know they’ve been purged until they show up to vote and are turned away.
Justice Samuel Alito’s decision was particularly biting, claiming that the arguments made by the citizens who’d lost their right to vote were “worse than superfluous” and their argument that they shouldn’t have to regularly check in with the secretary of state’s office to stay on the voter rolls represented logic “no sensible person” could agree with.
Sensible or not, in his dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that around 4% of Americans move every year. Yet, he wrote:
The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll...
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent was even more scathing:
“Congress enacted the NVRA against the backdrop of substantial efforts by States to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters,” she wrote, “including programs that purged eligible voters from registration lists because they failed to vote in prior elections."
“The Court errs in ignoring this history and distorting the statutory text to arrive at a conclusion that not only is contrary to the plain language of the NVRA but also contradicts the essential purposes of the statute, ultimately sanctioning the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against.”
She then quoted the “right to vote” NVRA preamble noted above, and, essentially, accused the conservatives on the court of helping Republicans in the states they controlled engage in massive racial and economic discrimination in the voting process:
[This decision] entirely ignores the history of voter suppression against which the NVRA was enacted and upholds a program that appears to further the very disenfranchisement of minority and low-income voters that Congress set out to eradicate… Ourdemocracy rests on the ability of all individuals, regardless of race, income, or status, to exercise their right to vote.
The “right to vote” took another hit when the State of Florida’s Supreme Court ordered a recount of the 2000 presidential election but five Republicans on the US Supreme Court ignored the 10th Amendment (“states’ rights”) and stopped the recount.
That was a good thing for George W. Bush, because when the Florida vote was later recounted by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times and the Washington Post, they found, as the Times noted on November 12, 2001:
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won...
Nonetheless, Chief Justice William Rehnquist dismissed all the nation’s concerns about the court flipping the 2000 presidential election in that totally partisan 5-4 decision, writing in his opinion:
[T]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.
Which casts us in a pretty terrible light. As Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) points out:
The constitutions of at least 135 nations—including our fellow North American countries, Canada and Mexico— explicitly guarantee citizens the right to vote…
Instead, Raskin notes, because of five corrupt Republicans on the US Supreme Court, we’re in the company of countries like Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, and Pakistan.
Republicans are pushing a full-blown authoritarian agenda, and they know it’s so unpopular that the only way they can get it through is to suppress the vote and thus rig the system.
That’s why they’ve already successfully passed previously unthinkable major voter suppression laws in 18 states and have them pending in many more. They’ve changed the law in Georgia and several other states so that they can now throw out the votes from entire neighborhoods or cities where they don’t like the outcome; all they have to do is vaguely assert a “suspicion of fraud.”
Unless enough of us stand up, speak up, and get active to regain control of Congress this fall and push legislation protecting American voters, Republicans will continue to eviscerate the voting right they’ve now turned into a privilege until it becomes completely meaningless.
Between the massive gerrymandering effort the GOP has launched nationwide and the Post Office’s changes that’ll hit Blue states with high levels of mail-in voting (some only have mail-in voting), the next few elections are going to be a real challenge for Democrats.
Additionally, as you’re reading these words, millions of voters are being purged from the rolls in Red states, particularly in Blue cities with significant minority populations.
As a result, this fall we’re going to have to show up in absolutely overwhelming numbers just to get squeaker victories in these now-heavily-rigged Republican-controlled states.
Unless enough of us stand up, speak up, and get active to regain control of Congress this fall and push legislation protecting American voters, Republicans will continue to eviscerate the voting right they’ve now turned into a privilege until it becomes completely meaningless.
And that will signal the end of America as we know it.
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