The US Supreme Court has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to impose new restrictions on mail ballots ahead of the November midterm elections.
Trump’s proposed rules could have disrupted ballot delivery, with election officials warning there was insufficient time to implement the sweeping changes.
The ruling is a setback for the administration, while Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Brett Kavanaugh left the door open to future challenges.
The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections, dealing a major setback to his administration’s efforts to overhaul voting procedures, the Associated Press reported.
The brief emergency order did not explain the court’s reasoning. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented.
Trump has repeatedly attacked mail voting and blamed the system for his 2020 election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. Mail ballots account for nearly a third of votes cast in the US, while there is little evidence of widespread fraud involving the voting method, according to the AP.
What Was Trump’s Mail Ballot Plan?
The Trump administration had asked the court to allow new requirements under which states would have had to use a uniform envelope format and upload lists of eligible voters to a federal online portal.
Under the proposal, the US Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots from states that failed to meet the requirements.
The administration argued that federal control over the Postal Service gave it authority to establish rules governing the handling of mail ballots.
But a whistleblower report raised concerns about the proposed system, warning that millions of ballots could potentially fail to be mailed because the online portal was not properly developed. It also cautioned that a single barcode error could result in an entire batch of ballots being discarded.
Election Officials Warned Of Midterm Disruption
Election officials had warned that there was insufficient time to implement a sweeping overhaul before the midterms. Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending mail ballots to voters while the proposed federal system remained inactive.
The restrictions could have had an especially significant impact in Washington and Oregon, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said election workers could continue preparing for the election without altering existing procedures to comply with what he called “unrealistic ballot mail requirements”.
The case divided the justices. Alito, in dissent, said the Postal Service has “broad authority to regulate the mail” and likely could enforce the proposed restrictions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the rules should not take effect for the upcoming midterms but suggested he could be receptive to the administration’s arguments if the issue returns to the court later.
Democratic state officials and voting rights groups had challenged Trump’s plan, arguing that the president lacked constitutional authority to impose election rules that could effectively eliminate mail voting shortly before a major election.
Lower courts had blocked the restrictions, including through a preliminary injunction issued by a judge appointed by Trump. The administration subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The justices had earlier issued a procedural ruling favouring the federal government but had not ruled on the underlying legality of the proposed restrictions.
