[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
A federal judge on Thursday once again temporarily prohibited the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out a plan to restrict mail-in voting, put in place after a directive from President Trump.<\/p>\n
Judge Indira Talwani, a Federal District Court judge in Massachusetts, had cleared the way for the Postal Service to move forward just the day before. But on Thursday, she issued a new order<\/a> concluding that the agency\u2019s plan, released late on Friday, appeared to overstep its legal mandate and could spark chaos by changing rules fewer than 70 days before an election.<\/p>\n She wrote that a group of Democratic-led states that had sued \u201cface irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMost plaintiff states have already ordered their mail ballots, and some are required by state law to send them to eligible voters as early as next week,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n She wrote that while the Supreme Court had \u201cadmonished\u201d her on Monday that the Postal Service had not finalized any changes when the groups sued initially, making court action premature, the stakes had changed since then because of the step the agency took Friday to formalize its plan.<\/p>\n Her ruling marked the third court decision on the issue in less than a week, a whipsaw of action that threatened to confuse voters<\/a>. But each delay has reduced the administration\u2019s chances of clearing the legal hurdles to execute its logistically complicated mail-in ballot plan before the November election. She blocked the rule from taking effect for 14 days, and she had previously scheduled a hearing to discuss the legality of the rule on Sept. 3.<\/p>\n In her order, Judge Talwani explained that the prospect of the new rule suddenly taking effect carried \u201csignificant risk of their members\u2019 disenfranchisement\u201d for voting rights organizations, which had also sued, along with the states.<\/p>\n She ticked through a list of requirements that state election officials would be required to meet to ensure delivery of ballots, including receiving the agency\u2019s approval for new envelope designs and submitting voters\u2019 information into an online portal run by the Postal Service.<\/p>\n \u201cWhere a state or local election official does not obtain envelope and return envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, or does not include unique intelligent mail bar codes on ballot envelopes, the U.S.P.S. will not mail ballots to voters,\u201d she concluded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The nonprofit groups behind one of the lawsuits said in a joint statement that they welcomed the court\u2019s order. \u201cThis is an important step towards affirming the public\u2019s confidence in the system of mail ballots, which thousands of eligible voters nationwide rely on as a core method of democratic participation,\u201d the groups said in the statement.<\/p>\n In March, President Trump issued an executive order that required the Department of Homeland Security to create and circulate state-by-state citizenship lists to state officials. It further urged states to provide the U.S. Postal Service with their own lists of voters eligible to cast ballots by mail.<\/p>\n Multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the order, arguing that Congress and the states set rules for elections, not the executive branch. The challengers also argued that no federal law gives the Postal Service the power to make those kinds of election-related rules.<\/p>\n On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled<\/a> that one suit, brought by a group of Democratic-led states, was premature because the administration had not started implementing its plans.<\/p>\n But late Friday, just before the court ruled, the Postal Service formally published<\/a> a new plan to comply with the executive order. Under that plan, the service would not deliver mail ballots<\/a> in states that do not share voter data with the agency and would only deliver ballots that meet certain criteria.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Lawyers for the Trump administration and the groups challenging the rule continue to clash over a straightforward issue: Whether or not the Postal Service\u2019s plan would mean the agency would be taking on a new role verifying voters and potentially rejecting ballots in the midterm election in November.<\/p>\n