U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed changes to mail-in ballot rules have been put on hold by the country’s Supreme Court ahead of the November midterm elections.
Trump’s order would have required uniform envelopes that would be individually barcoded and approved by the U.S. Postal Service according to eligible voters’ lists. It also would have authorized federal authorities to create the lists. Under the U.S. president’s intended reforms, the attorney general would have investigated organizations or people who facilitate ballots for ineligible voters. In addition, federal agencies would have been allowed to withhold funds for noncompliant states.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Trump’s plan may ultimately be upheld as constitutional after the elections, but “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”
Trump signed an executive order in March seeking to restrict mail-in voting, claiming without evidence that mail-in voting is vulnerable to fraud. Trump’s executive order quickly prompted multiple legal challenges. Democratic-led states sued the administration on the grounds that under the U.S. Constitution, states—and not the federal government—retain broad control over the administration of elections. Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots but has frequently used them himself, including when he voted by mail in Florida’s Republican primary earlier this year.
The ruling removes a major source of uncertainty from an election that could determine Trump’s ability to govern during the final two years of his term, leaving states to conduct the midterms under existing mail-ballot procedures. With Republicans’ narrow congressional majority at risk, a Democratic takeover of the House could constrain Trump’s domestic agenda and intensify congressional scrutiny of his administration. The outcome also carries foreign-policy consequences: control of Congress could shape funding, oversight, and political support for Trump’s handling of the Iran war at a time when the conflict is placing growing military and economic demands on Washington. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore leaves the broader fight over presidential authority and election administration for later while preventing that legal battle from immediately reshaping the rules of a consequential wartime election. (AFP+EIR)
