Althouse: "The emergency request marks the latest turn in a dizzying legal fight over mail-in voting, even as states begin distributing mail-in ballots to voters."

6 సెప్టెంబర్, 2026

"The emergency request marks the latest turn in a dizzying legal fight over mail-in voting, even as states begin distributing mail-in ballots to voters."

"The upshot has become clear in recent days: It will be the Supreme Court that has the final say on President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms. It’s unclear how fast the justices will move and announce a ruling.... The Trump administration had already filed emergency request to the justices challenging a shorter-term pause [the trial judge] had imposed on the plan. But the trial court judge acted to extend her freeze before the justices ruled, necessitating a new request from the administration for Supreme Court action...."

I'm reading "Trump Administration Again Asks Supreme Court to Allow Mail Voting Restrictions/The filing puts the legality of the president’s push to impose limits on mail voting squarely before the justices even as states begin sending out ballots" (NYT gift link).

53 కామెంట్‌లు:

n.n చెప్పారు...: Purple thumbs with votes. Even third-world nations under supervision of the United Nations can do it. That said, democracy dies in darkness.; 06-09-26 10:52 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: If Congress wants to change the rules governing federal elections, Congress has the constitutional authority to do so. But the President cannot simply assume Congress’s Elections Clause power through an executive order.; 06-09-26 10:57 AM
n.n చెప్పారు...: In socialist America, counters vote.; 06-09-26 10:59 AM
Peachy+2 చెప్పారు...: The corrupt democrat crime syndicate demand that all of Biden's illegals vote, and stay on the tax payer funded dole.; 06-09-26 11:01 AM
Original Mike చెప్పారు...: The recalcitrant States have no compelling objection to this method of election oversight. It doesn't disenfranchise anybody. Their motive is obvious for all to see.; 06-09-26 11:03 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: The Constitution really isn’t ambiguous here. Article I, Section 4 gives states the authority to prescribe the rules governing congressional elections, while explicitly giving Congress, not the President, the power to “make or alter” those rules. If Congress wants to restrict or standardize mail voting, it has a constitutional mechanism to do so. But the President cannot simply assume a power the Constitution assigns to Congress. The issue isn’t whether mail voting is good or bad policy — it’s who has the constitutional authority to make the rules.; 06-09-26 11:04 AM
Yancey Ward చెప్పారు...: Federal law makes it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Federal law makes it a crime for a person, including citizens, from filling out more than one ballot. Federal law gives the executive branch the power to ensure all those laws I cited above are obeyed and the power to prosecute those who break those laws. I think the executive orders have a lot support in laws passed by Congress and I think there is a good chance SCOTUS will agree before the 2028 election. There is almost no chance that these new safeguards, and that is what these are- ways to prevent mail-in-ballot fraud- will be used in the 2026 midterms- the goal will be 2028.; 06-09-26 11:22 AM
Breezy చెప్పారు...: We demanded security in our banking systems, payment systems, medical systems, etc. Because of this demand, Congress created laws and statutes to require that the participating businesses be secure. Now, Trump is trying to make mail in voting more secure, just as we demanded in other parts of our lives. Why do we have to wait for Congress to act when it’s clearly what we as a people demand, by 85% no less? and it’s simply by modifying the already approved substrate that is used by mail in voting, the USPS, which he is in charge of? It’s in the name fps.

I believe this is called continual improvement.; 06-09-26 11:25 AM
Leland చెప్పారు...: "The upshot has become clear in recent days"

Nonsense. It has been clear for almost 250 years.; 06-09-26 11:27 AM
Mark చెప్పారు...: ఈ కామెంట్‌ను రచయిత తీసివేశారు.; 06-09-26 11:29 AM
Aggie చెప్పారు...: Restrict Restrict Restrict. Funny how they keep using that word to describe a process that begins with the definition of what a citizen is.; 06-09-26 11:30 AM
John చెప్పారు...: Yancy is correct on both points: Existing law will allow the executive to ensure non-citizens cannot vote by mail, and this is is about 2028, not 2026. If so, it follows that the ruling from the Supreme Court will probably not come before the 2026 election.; 06-09-26 11:31 AM
Mark చెప్పారు...: "Why do we have to wait for Congress to act "
Breezy is pro-dictator and anti-Constitution.; 06-09-26 11:31 AM
Dave Begley చెప్పారు...: Restrict?

No. The rules are there to stop the Dems from cheating and stealing.; 06-09-26 11:33 AM
Ann Althouse చెప్పారు...: @Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ I think the President is relying on his powers to enforce laws having to do with fraud using the Post Office. I don't know if that's good enough, but that's the idea.; 06-09-26 11:33 AM
WA-mom చెప్పారు...: After the 2020 election, I faulted Trump for not -- before the election -- taking some actions to prevent the fraud he kept warning about. Nothing can be done when the horse has left the barn. Now they should keep pushing the states to become fraud free.; 06-09-26 11:40 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: Ann Althouse writes: 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦

It is the legal theory the administration is advancing, but lower courts have so far treated it as insufficient.

Relying on fraud-enforcement authority plus control of the federal mails is a coherent argument and the one being litigated. It is not frivolous. However, it has not yet been accepted by the lower courts as a valid workaround around the constitutional allocation of power in Article I, Section 4 (and related provisions). Whether it ultimately succeeds will depend on how the Supreme Court resolves the pending challenges. The distinction the administration draws: “we’re only regulating the mail, not the elections” is precisely the point of sharp disagreement.; 06-09-26 11:40 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: Funny how the sudden urgency for tighter mail-in rules only kicked into high gear once the keys to the White House (and the Postal Service) were back in the same hands.; 06-09-26 11:42 AM
DJ99 చెప్పారు...: Replace the word "restrict" with "regulate" and reread.; 06-09-26 11:43 AM
Original Mike చెప్పారు...: Why might we need new tools to enforce existing laws? Because of things like this: 400,000 California Voters Didn't Provide Any ID at Registration; 06-09-26 11:43 AM
Original Mike చెప్పారు...: "Funny how the sudden urgency for tighter mail-in rules only kicked into high gear once the keys to the White House (and the Postal Service) were back in the same hands."

Not odd at all. The other hands greatly benefit from unenforced election laws.; 06-09-26 11:46 AM
Mason G చెప్పారు...: "President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms."

"President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms to eligible voters."

Fixed it for the NYT.; 06-09-26 12:01 PM
Temujin చెప్పారు...: "...on President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms."

Let me help the NYTimes. What they are calling, and attempting to cast as an illegal action to restrict lawful voting is, in reality, his attempt to stop the rolling masses of unchecked, unverified ballots and harvesting that has created a system no one trusts any longer.

This is not just a Trump desire. It is the desire of the majority of Americans and has been for years now. If our Congress had any ability at all, this would not be for Trump to do. If Democrats had any honor at all, this would not be for Trump to do.

That we even have to argue that allowing mass mailings of ballots to voter rolls that have not been cleaned up since Kennedy was President is a bad idea is disheartening. This should be a no-brainer for everyone, starting with our Congress.; 06-09-26 12:03 PM
Original Mike చెప్పారు...: "President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms to eligible voters."

Yeah, their spin is so transparent.; 06-09-26 12:03 PM
mindnumbrobot చెప్పారు...: Power to conduct elections falls to states, but what happens when states institute policy that violates federal statues? I understand that may not be the specific issue at hand in this case, but isn't that really the crux of the matter? Non lawyer just trying to understand exactly what's happening.

Also, remember when "constitutional crisis" was the buzz phrase du jour? Isn't that what these liberal state legislators are instigating?; 06-09-26 12:11 PM
Fred Drinkwater చెప్పారు...: "Funny how the sudden urgency for tighter mail-in rules only kicked into high gear once the keys to the White House (and the Postal Service) were back in the same hands."

Funny how, before now, the folks holding those keys didn't want to tighten the rules.; 06-09-26 12:12 PM
bagoh20 చెప్పారు...: Why was it so easy to change it in the first place and so hard to change it back now. If it was changed due to some exception circumstances, are they still here? If not, changing it back should be the default.; 06-09-26 12:14 PM
Mason G చెప్పారు...: Once the left manages to make it even easier to cheat, you have to live with those rules. The ratchet only goes one way.; 06-09-26 12:19 PM
Leland చెప్పారు...: My point is only the fact the Supreme Court will have the final say, because that is why it exists. However, in this case, it may take Congress impeaching this judge, who has been overruled twice now and is going for a third time.; 06-09-26 12:27 PM
Original Mike చెప్పారు...: "However, in this case, it may take Congress impeaching this judge, who has been overruled twice now and is going for a third time."

Which will never happen, because democrats.; 06-09-26 12:44 PM
rehajm చెప్పారు...: …for decades in those government advancements on criminals that involved multiple agencies to don their windbreakers, the first person through the door was a postal inspector. Enforcement authority. Despite the endless leftie protests that Republican Presidents have no real power of their own this one should be cut and dry but because it threatens to end the Democrat party the Supremes must standing laches moot their way to keeping Democrats viable. Somehow the thumb on the scale will stay there…; 06-09-26 12:44 PM
rehajm చెప్పారు...: “Which will never happen, because democrats.”

…Ann makes the eloquent ConLawProf argument: ‘We don’t do that’…; 06-09-26 12:46 PM
Mason G చెప్పారు...: According to ChatGPT...

Using Congressional Research Service (CRS) methodology, counting cases in which a federal court issued a nationwide injunction:

Obama (8 years): 12
Trump I (4 years): 86
Biden (4 years): 28
Trump II (1 year + 5 months): 50 and counting; 06-09-26 12:52 PM
Yancey Ward చెప్పారు...: "It is the legal theory the administration is advancing, but lower courts have so far treated it as insufficient."

So, Bich, if SCOTUS finds it sufficient, will you acknowledge it is sufficient?; 06-09-26 1:24 PM
Breezy చెప్పారు...: Don’t forget, Trump is advancing the USPS rules because all democrats and a few republicans are blocking the SAVE Act and even the simpler voter id law. Our own US reps, even with 85% of us wanting secure elections, are refusing to pass it. Trump is effectively our singular Representative on this issue at this point. He is not dictating, he’s acknowledging and trying to service our demand.; 06-09-26 1:34 PM
Mark చెప్పారు...: Breezy, your 85% figure is a joke no matter how many times you mention it.; 06-09-26 1:49 PM
Gospace చెప్పారు...: The USPS is a federal agency. Committing fraud through the mail is a federal crime. What's the best way to combat fraud? Stop it before it happens.

The Federal Government allow military ballots to travel through the mail postage free. Which makes sense- since the federal government requires military personnel to be away from their voting areas. So arguably requiring postage would be a poll tax.

The states are using the USPS to conduct elections. The USPS is entitled to combat fraud by mail. Any kind of fraud. Including elections fraud. Establishing regulations for how they handle ballots to ensure they are valid is well within the authority of the USPS. As long as they are uniform across the states, as the proposed regulations appear to be. If the states don't want to follow the regulations- the USPS can simply refuse to carry and deliver a states ballots. People from the state will have to vote the old fashioned way- in person, on election day. Like I do.; 06-09-26 2:01 PM
Iman చెప్పారు...: Mark may be right. Name a Democrat that wants a secure election.; 06-09-26 2:36 PM
Bruce Hayden చెప్పారు...: “No. The rules are there to stop the Dems from cheating and stealing”

And, that is what the NYT is rephrasing in order to hide - industrial level mail fraud.

In 2020, Biden got 10 million or so extra votes, out of thin air. I think that sometime in the past, there had been legitimate voters matching the credentials on the ballots mailed. Maybe. But what we do know is that in 2020, around this time, a large truck filled with ballots was intercepted in the wrong state. Tens of thousands of ballots destined somewhere besides an election related location. Thats very likely what is behind this - industrial level mass mailing of ballots to central polling locations, typically in other states. And maybe a little out of state voting.

I don’t think though that this going to be necessary. Just watch the incoming mail, for bunches of ballots arriving from the same location. Best if it is an out-of-state location. Subpoena the USPS routing database. Run searches matching delivery at county USPS delivery points. Then look at the mailing post offices. If you find 1k ballots mailed at the same location, with the same county delivery points, you have your industrial level mail fraud. Note that the database has no names, just source post office and destination. Which means that regular, legitimate, ballots cannot be traced to individuals.; 06-09-26 2:37 PM
Bruce Hayden చెప్పారు...: “People from the state will have to vote the old fashioned way- in person, on election day. Like I do.”

Or even delivery of your ballot to a county or precinct drop off location. That’s another problem - we know, for example, in AZ, that the same person was driving a circle through of drop boxes every day, presumably dropping off ballots at each one. Somehow Katy Holmes, the Secretary of State at the time, in charge of elections in the state, got an injunction prohibiting civilians from observing the dropping off of ballots at these locations. And as a result of her shenanigans, got herself elected Governor. That was 2022, with the observers attempting to prevent the sort of fraud that got Biden AZ’s electoral votes two years earlier. There is evidence that she is owned by the cartels, just south of the border, as apparently is the state AG that she helped elect.; 06-09-26 2:50 PM
Mason G చెప్పారు...: According to Pew Research Center, from August 2025:

Support for photo ID requirements also remains widespread in both parties. More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.; 06-09-26 2:53 PM
john mosby చెప్పారు...: Breezy: "We demanded security in our banking systems, payment systems, medical systems, etc."

Yes. I will repeat what I hope I can make a new catchphrase: "If only voting were as secure as finance!" CC, JSM; 06-09-26 3:21 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: Ann Althouse writes: 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘖𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦

Trump argues that his duty to enforce federal anti-fraud laws authorizes him to direct the Postal Service to restrict election-related mail. But enforcing existing laws does not necessarily allow the president to create new election rules without congressional authorization.

The most important question for SCOTUS is likely to be:
Did Congress actually give the president or USPS authority to impose these requirements on states, or is the administration using general postal authority to accomplish something Congress never authorized federal control over an aspect of election administration?; 06-09-26 3:37 PM
ronetc చెప్పారు...: Temujin: "This should be a no-brainer for everyone, starting with our Congress." The problem seems to be a question of whether the Congress is already filled with "no brainers" or is contemptibly corrupt. Yet another instance of the abiding power of "and," I suppose.; 06-09-26 3:45 PM
Jamie చెప్పారు...: "The distinction the administration draws: “we’re only regulating the mail, not the elections” is precisely the point of sharp disagreement."

It's a "point of sharp disagreement" because your side continually insists on disingenuously framing regulation of the mail as "restricting mail voting," as here, or as the even more inflammatory and false "disenfranchisement." If your side would accurately describe the regulation as "preventing mail fraud and federal election fraud through ensuring that only eligible voters in each state cast ballots by mail," then it couldn't be used as a "point of sharp disagreement."

But that kind of caterpillarian bending of language to Democrat will is par for the course. "Gender-affirming care," anyone?; 06-09-26 3:48 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: Bruce Hayden’s claims are inaccurate. It is Katie Hobbs, not “Katy Holmes.” Arizona law in 2022 allowed limited third-party ballot delivery. Videos of people visiting multiple drop boxes existed; investigations found no systematic illegal activity that changed certified results.

No injunction obtained by Hobbs broadly banned civilian observation to conceal fraud related court orders addressed security and disruption concerns.

Hobbs’s 2022 win was certified; courts rejected the related challenges. Allegations that she or the AG are “owned by cartels” are unsupported by any credible evidence.; 06-09-26 3:48 PM
Mason G చెప్పారు...: "The problem seems to be a question of whether the Congress is already filled with "no brainers" or is contemptibly corrupt."

It's filled with Government Party representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who are clearly unhappy that regular Americans seem to think they should have a voice in how things are done.

And by interfering with the ability to ensure that the only people voting are actually legally registered, they continue to deny Americans that voice.; 06-09-26 4:09 PM
Tom Locker చెప్పారు...: It's only fair to says that President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms. if you think that non-citizens should vote.; 06-09-26 4:18 PM
Tom Locker చెప్పారు...: According to ChatGPT...

Using Congressional Research Service (CRS) methodology, counting cases in which a federal court issued a nationwide injunction:

Obama (8 years): 12 - 1.5 @ year
Trump I (4 years): 86 - 21.5 @ year
Biden (4 years): 28 - 7 @ year
Trump II (1 year + 5 months): 50 and counting - about 35 @ year; 06-09-26 4:25 PM
Iman చెప్పారు...: Indescribable Enema Exhibitionist™ has no standing.; 06-09-26 4:27 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ చెప్పారు...: The Trump administration had roughly 18–20 months with a Republican Congress to pursue statutory mail-ballot reforms. Major legislative efforts did not pass. Instead, it relied on a March 2026 executive order and an August 2026 Postal Service rule, which are now the subject of emergency Supreme Court applications in early September after states have already begun mailing ballots and lower courts blocked implementation.; 06-09-26 4:36 PM
Achilles చెప్పారు...: Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...

The Constitution really isn’t ambiguous here. Article I, Section 4 gives states the authority to prescribe the rules governing congressional elections, while explicitly giving Congress, not the President, the power to “make or alter” those rules.

I wonder why an institution with single digit approval ratings doesn't want transparent fair elections.

It is a total mystery.; 06-09-26 4:41 PM
Achilles చెప్పారు...: Mark said...

Breezy, your 85% figure is a joke no matter how many times you mention it.

Mark is right.

About 30-40% of the people in the United States want election fraud to continue.; 06-09-26 4:45 PM

కామెంట్‌ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.

Althouse

6 సెప్టెంబర్, 2026

"The emergency request marks the latest turn in a dizzying legal fight over mail-in voting, even as states begin distributing mail-in ballots to voters."

53 కామెంట్‌లు:

కామెంట్‌ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి

Encourage Althouse by doing your Amazon shopping...

Amazon

Encourage Althouse by making a donation:

Blog Archive

Althouse

6 సెప్టెంబర్, 2026

"The emergency request marks the latest turn in a dizzying legal fight over mail-in voting, even as states begin distributing mail-in ballots to voters."

53 కామెంట్‌లు:

కామెంట్‌ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి

Encourage Althouse by doing your Amazon shopping...

Amazon

Encourage Althouse by making a donation:

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive