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."

September 6, 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).

37 comments:

n.n said...: Purple thumbs with votes. Even third-world nations under supervision of the United Nations can do it. That said, democracy dies in darkness.; 9/6/26, 10:52 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 10:57 AM
n.n said...: In socialist America, counters vote.; 9/6/26, 10:59 AM
Peachy+2 said...: The corrupt democrat crime syndicate demand that all of Biden's illegals vote, and stay on the tax payer funded dole.; 9/6/26, 11:01 AM
Original Mike said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:03 AM
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. 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.; 9/6/26, 11:04 AM
Yancey Ward said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:22 AM
Breezy said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:25 AM
Leland said...: "The upshot has become clear in recent days"

Nonsense. It has been clear for almost 250 years.; 9/6/26, 11:27 AM
Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/6/26, 11:29 AM
Aggie said...: Restrict Restrict Restrict. Funny how they keep using that word to describe a process that begins with the definition of what a citizen is.; 9/6/26, 11:30 AM
John said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:31 AM
Mark said...: "Why do we have to wait for Congress to act "
Breezy is pro-dictator and anti-Constitution.; 9/6/26, 11:31 AM
Dave Begley said...: Restrict?

No. The rules are there to stop the Dems from cheating and stealing.; 9/6/26, 11:33 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @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.; 9/6/26, 11:33 AM
WA-mom said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:40 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:40 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 11:42 AM
DJ99 said...: Replace the word "restrict" with "regulate" and reread.; 9/6/26, 11:43 AM
Original Mike said...: 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; 9/6/26, 11:43 AM
Original Mike said...: "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.; 9/6/26, 11:46 AM
Mason G said...: "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.; 9/6/26, 12:01 PM
Temujin said...: "...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.; 9/6/26, 12:03 PM
Original Mike said...: "President Trump’s plans to restrict mail voting in the midterms to eligible voters."

Yeah, their spin is so transparent.; 9/6/26, 12:03 PM
mindnumbrobot said...: 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?; 9/6/26, 12:11 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: "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.; 9/6/26, 12:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 12:14 PM
Mason G said...: Once the left manages to make it even easier to cheat, you have to live with those rules. The ratchet only goes one way.; 9/6/26, 12:19 PM
Leland said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 12:27 PM
Original Mike said...: "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.; 9/6/26, 12:44 PM
rehajm said...: …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…; 9/6/26, 12:44 PM
rehajm said...: “Which will never happen, because democrats.”

…Ann makes the eloquent ConLawProf argument: ‘We don’t do that’…; 9/6/26, 12:46 PM
Mason G said...: 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; 9/6/26, 12:52 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "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?; 9/6/26, 1:24 PM
Breezy said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 1:34 PM
Mark said...: Breezy, your 85% figure is a joke no matter how many times you mention it.; 9/6/26, 1:49 PM
Gospace said...: 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.; 9/6/26, 2:01 PM