Althouse: "Supreme Court Allows Trump Plan to Restrict Mail-In Voting, for Now."

August 24, 2026

"Supreme Court Allows Trump Plan to Restrict Mail-In Voting, for Now."

"The administration asked the court to clear the way for President Trump’s order that creates 'state citizenship lists' and directs the Postal Service to decide who gets a mail-in ballot" (NYT gift link).

33 comments:

Iman said...: Democrats and other shitbirds hardest hit…; 8/24/26, 5:39 PM
Original Mike said...: Should cause no problems for the states, seeing as how their voter rolls are clean as a whistle.; 8/24/26, 5:45 PM
Mason G said...: "Democrats and other shitbirds hardest hit…"

They shouldn't be. They don't have any problems collecting ballots to deposit in drop boxes, so all they have to do is get their mules- err... ballot carriers to help their constituents get straightened out so that they get their ballots mailed to their houses.

It could, however, be a problem for all the ballots that are now coming from cemeteries, vacant warehouses and homeless encampments. So there's that.; 8/24/26, 5:45 PM
Mark said...: Unsigned order, of course.
Funny how those who complain about judges making sweeping rulings no doubt approve of this one.; 8/24/26, 5:47 PM
rehajm said...: …it will mean they bypass the usps and voters, print their own ballots, deliver them to the machines. Since there are no safeguards at the counting the ruling tis but a minor setback. They can adjust…; 8/24/26, 5:51 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: Once again, the SCOTUS did was refuse to go along with the Far-left judges who want to stop Trump from doing anything. They didn't say Trump's "Plan" was "Lawful" - just that the Judges cant injoin him from going forward.

Here's how Kagan puts it

"Today’s decision does not address whether the
President’s attempts to interfere with States’
administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful.
Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any
constitutional or statutory authority to implement the
President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely
postpones adjudication of those challenges. Nonetheless,
because I believe the respondent States’ challenges are
justiciable now, I respectfully dissent."; 8/24/26, 5:57 PM
gilbar said...: it MUST BE frustrating for lefties, when the court refuses to play polititics, and insists on following the law..
oh WHY can't they be like the district courts, and just obey the dems?; 8/24/26, 6:00 PM
Mason G said...: It would sure be a shame if we held an election where the only people participating were eligible voters.; 8/24/26, 6:00 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: Justice Clown-show Action Jackson writes another 23 page screed (did she use AI?) to say "Trump bad. Democrats Good".

Why she didn't just sign on to the Kagan-Wise Latina opinion is anyone's guess. I Suspect she loves the spotlight and being the center of attention.; 8/24/26, 6:00 PM
boatbuilder said...: BOOM!
"...for now...directs the Postal Service to decide who gets a mail-in ballot."

They can't help themselves.

"For now" means for the upcoming midterm elections; which means for the foreseeable future when everyone not in the tank for the Democrats sees what happens and asks "Why haven't we always done this?"

The Postal Service doesn't decide who gets mail-in ballots. The states do. The Postal Service just keeps track of what happens to the ballots that get sent by the US Mail.; 8/24/26, 6:05 PM
Mason G said...: "They can't help themselves."

The NYT? Say it ain't so!; 8/24/26, 6:09 PM
Original Mike said...: "The Postal Service just keeps track of what happens to the ballots that get sent by the US Mail."

If a mailed-out ballot gets returned to a drop-box, seems like they can't track that.; 8/24/26, 6:11 PM
boatbuilder said...: Mark--I'm curious--what is your objection to a system that keeps track of ballots delivered via the U.S. Mail?

Does it "intimidate voters?" How?
does it "interfere with the election process" as Kagan claims? How? (the only "interference with the states' administration of the election process" that I can see is to require states to clean up their rolls. Which is what the U.S. Government does (in theory) with Medicare, Medicaid, motor vehicles, etc. )

It seems more akin to what Fedex and Amazon are able to do with every package they deliver. Keep track of it. Is that a problem? Why?; 8/24/26, 6:15 PM
Peachy+2 said...: the Crime syndicate - who allowed millions of illegals in under crook Joe- must be rage fueled.; 8/24/26, 6:17 PM
Peachy+2 said...: Jenna Griswold(D)(MS NOW) - the sec of state of CO - will not clean up the voter rolls and will not allow any transparency.; 8/24/26, 6:17 PM
Mason G said...: "Keep track of it. Is that a problem? Why?"

Everybody knows why.; 8/24/26, 6:19 PM
Peachy+2 said...: The Democrat Party is the mob.; 8/24/26, 6:21 PM
Mason G said...: "If a mailed-out ballot gets returned to a drop-box, seems like they can't track that."

If you can receive a mailed ballot, there's no reason you can't return it by mail.; 8/24/26, 6:21 PM
boatbuilder said...: Original Mike--"They can't track that"
Why not? The envelope has a trackable tag on it.
If ballots supposedly mailed to residents of Tucson end up in a drop box in Phoenix, that tells you that perhaps everything is not on the up-and-up. You can also presumably tell whether a particular ballot ever got to the address of the voter.
It makes garden-variety election fraud a whole lot harder.; 8/24/26, 6:22 PM
Original Mike said...: boatbuilder - I don't think you're going to get an answer. There is no legitimate objection.; 8/24/26, 6:24 PM
Jim at said...: *Funny how those who complain about judges making sweeping rulings no doubt approve of this one.*

Define 'sweeping ruling' and how it applies to this case.; 8/24/26, 6:26 PM
Original Mike said...: "If ballots supposedly mailed to residents of Tucson end up in a drop box in Phoenix, that tells you that perhaps everything is not on the up-and-up."

I'm thinking the USPS isn't going to have access to drop-boxes; those will be picked up by the local election officials.

"You can also presumably tell whether a particular ballot ever got to the address of the voter."

I do think it tightens up the front-end. The USPS can monitor if the delivery location looks legit. Of course, they could always do that, but they had no motivation to do so. In fact, as democrat allies, their motivation was to be incurious. That could still be the case. I wonder what enforcement might be involved.; 8/24/26, 6:31 PM
boatbuilder said...: "There is no legitimate objection"
True. I'm waiting to see what they come up with. Did Justice Jackson opine that it's racist? I bet she did.; 8/24/26, 6:34 PM
Dave Begley said...: MS Now in full meltdown.; 8/24/26, 6:36 PM
boatbuilder said...: Original Mike--The jig is up. Post-election a candidate who thinks he got screwed can get the USPS data. As can pretty much everyone else, I suppose, with a FOIA request. It's 2026.
If a couple hundred ballots arrive at a "drop box" at the same time, from the same place--well, there might be a legitimate explanation, but the evidence is what it is.; 8/24/26, 6:39 PM
Original Mike said...: "MS Now in full meltdown."

What do *they* give as a legitimate objection?; 8/24/26, 6:40 PM
Original Mike said...: "If a couple hundred ballots arrive at a "drop box" at the same time,"

Aren't drop boxes unmonitored, just sitting out there on the street?; 8/24/26, 6:41 PM
boatbuilder said...: The envelopes are monitored. That's the point.
The absurdity of states objecting to providing specific lists of people who are eligible to vote in their states gives the game away. Isn't that what they are supposed to do anyway? How is this "chaos?"
One would think that those states might want people who aren't eligible to vote voting in their states. Who could imagine such a thing?; 8/24/26, 6:48 PM
Mason G said...: "One would think that those states might want people who aren't eligible to vote voting in their states. Who could imagine such a thing?"

New Jersey has entered the chat.; 8/24/26, 6:52 PM
Aggie said...: One of the 'tells' in the 2020 election, if I recall correctly, was the delivery of absentee ballots by the gross to mail drops, i.e. strip-mall mailbox services. Other examples were multiple ballots being sent to parking lot addresses, or empty lots. What this is going to do is shine a light on such instances, but on the Federal record, which will facilitate querying the database, returning with instant proof of such instances in the form of a custody chain, which will also facilitate prosecution.; 8/24/26, 6:56 PM
Dave Begley said...: “Chaos” is one of the words the Left loves to use and tie it to Trump.; 8/24/26, 6:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "The absurdity of states objecting to providing specific lists of people who are eligible to vote in their states gives the game away."

Indeed. I'm just trying to understand the concrete protection provided. This is what I've got:

✅ Comparison of ballot mailing list against list of US citizens.
✅ A list of all mailing addresses in the hands of the USPS. Should detect mass mailings to NGOs, Skid Row, etc.
✅ Detection of manufactured mail-in ballots. You can't dump a pallet of fake mail-in ballots that were never mailed out in the first place.; 8/24/26, 7:07 PM
Original Mike said...: "New Jersey has entered the chat."

And Mark has left.; 8/24/26, 7:10 PM