The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked an attempt by President Donald Trump’s administration to introduce new rules for mail-in voting just before the election, removing major uncertainty that had surrounded preparations for the upcoming congressional elections for weeks.
The decision represents a significant blow to the Trump administration, which wanted to give the U.S. Postal Service a much greater role in the process of sending and delivering ballots. Critics had warned that the new rules could cause chaos just weeks before the election and result in millions of Americans not receiving their ballots on time.
The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s request to overturn lower-court rulings that had temporarily halted implementation of the new rules. This allows election commissions across the country to continue sending ballots by mail under the existing rules.
Millions of Voters Could Have Been Left Without Ballots
The dispute began after an executive order that Trump signed in March, saying he wanted to prevent fraud associated with mail-in voting.
His administration subsequently developed a plan under which states would be required to use standardized envelopes for mail-in ballots and provide the Postal Service with voter lists through a special online portal.
Under the rules, the Postal Service would have been able to refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to meet the requirements.
A whistleblower’s report warned that such a system could result in millions of ballots never being sent to voters.
This could have particularly affected states where mail-in voting is the dominant method of voting.
In California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington, voters cast their ballots almost entirely by mail, prompting local officials to warn that introducing new rules immediately before the election would be nearly impossible to implement without serious disruptions.
“Elections Can Continue Normally”
The Supreme Court’s decision was met with relief among election officials across the country.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said election officials can now finally continue preparations without the uncertainty that had hung over the process for months.
“Now we can finally move forward and get back to what we do best, conducting elections fairly and transparently,” Weber said.
Similar messages came from other states.
Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson said residents of the state can now be confident that the 2026 elections will be held under the usual rules.
Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read called the decision a “victory for voting rights and the rule of law.”
“Presidents don’t run elections, people do,” Read said.
Trump Has Been Attacking Mail-In Voting for Years
Trump has for years claimed that mail-in voting is vulnerable to widespread abuse, although he has provided no evidence for claims of widespread fraud.
When signing the executive order in March, he said that fraud associated with mail-in voting was “legendary” and that he expected his order to contribute to safer elections.
Lawsuits against the order were soon filed by voting rights organizations, the Democratic Party and several states led by Democrats.
Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocked key parts of Trump’s directive in June, but the Supreme Court temporarily lifted her injunction in August, explaining that it had been issued before the administration had adopted the final rules.
The Postal Service subsequently presented its final plan, triggering a new wave of lawsuits.
This time, lower courts again halted implementation of the new rules, and the Supreme Court has now declined to overturn their decisions.
READ MORE:
Justices Say Administration Is Unlikely to Prevail in the Case
The Supreme Court majority did not provide a detailed explanation of the decision, but indicated that the Trump administration is unlikely to successfully defend its plan in further court proceedings.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with the court’s decision, specifically emphasized that state and local election officials simply do not have enough time to implement the new rules before the election.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that Congress has the authority to regulate the electoral process and that it can delegate some of those powers to the Postal Service.
However, for election law experts, the majority’s statement that the administration is “unlikely to prevail on the merits” is particularly significant.
University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller said that this was an important signal for future litigation as well.
According to him, the court did not have to comment on the administration’s prospects of ultimately winning the case, but nevertheless chose to do so.
What the Decision Means for the Upcoming Election
The decision comes at a time when mail-in voting has already begun in some states.
About one-third of American voters use some form of mail-in voting, prompting election officials to warn that changing the rules at the last minute could cause enormous confusion among voters and administrators.
For now, however, the election will be held under the rules that were already in place.
That means states can continue sending ballots to voters without the additional requirements that the Trump administration attempted to introduce.
Although the legal disputes have not yet been fully resolved, the Supreme Court’s decision has effectively removed the possibility that the new rules will be applied to the upcoming election, and some legal experts believe it is unlikely that they will ever take effect in their current form.
MORE TOPICS:
Source:ormativni razgovor“ dan nakon predaje liste RIK-u!
Izvor: Nova; Foto:JIM LO SCALZO / EPA
Add Serbian Times as your Google source