A Massachusetts federal judge on Wednesday removed the block on the last part of President Donald Trump’s effort to place restrictions and changes on how the country votes, just a couple of months ahead of the November midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani lifted the nationwide injunction related to Trump’s order for the U.S. Postal Service to begin changing mail-in ballot procedures and envelopes.
It came after the Supreme Court on Monday ruled in an emergency order that Trump could begin carrying out parts of his executive order.
Talwani’s reversal will allow part of Trump’s order, titled Making Elections Secure Again, to move forward — at least if courts rule against another swift act by Democratic-led states to block it.
USPS would begin putting provisions on mail-in ballots. Envelopes sent by state election offices must mark the ballot envelopes as official election mail and include designated markings provided by the Postal Service. They would have to be automation-compatible and each would have a unique barcode that’s able to be tracked.
The order also allows USPS to coordinate with the Department of Justice for investigations into the unlawful use of federal election mail.
USPS published a preliminary rule that would require states to provide the federal government a list of voters who receive mail-in ballots. States must notify USPS at least 90 days before an election and send them the list of people who don’t plan to vote in person, meaning voters’ information, including their name, address and individualized envelope barcode would be sent from the states to USPS.
The Supreme Court earlier this week ruled that Democratic states that sued did so too early since the USPS rule was not finalized. After the justices’ ruling, which was 6-3 along ideological lines, the DOJ filed a request to Talwani, asking her to lift the injunction.
They argue the Supreme Court’s order proves the judge shouldn’t have been able to place the nationwide injunction, at least at that time.
Trump has long been against mail-in ballots after he cited his 2020 presidential loss to widespread voter fraud. While there’s no evidence of widespread fraud in that election, mail-in ballots were used at an unprecedented rate due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
After signing the order earlier this year, Democratic states filed a lawsuit, looking to block the USPS changes and the other part of the order, which would have created a federal database of U.S. citizens eligible to vote.
The ruling from the Supreme Court allowed USPS to move forward, at least in a separate manner from Talwani’s injunction.
The judge was reluctant but agreed to lift the block, making note that the Democratic-led states have “substantial arguments” that might lead the Supreme Court to change its ruling.
“The Government has not even bothered to assert, much less demonstrate, that the President has the constitutional authority to issue an order that directs the manner in which the mail-in ballot aspect of federal elections is to be administered,” the judge wrote in her dismissal of the injunction.
She wrote that she felt “compelled” to lift the order after the court’s ruling Monday.
The justices didn’t rule on the actual legality of Trump’s order. Under the Constitution, only Congress can pass laws related to elections and state legislatures are given the authority to conduct elections as they see fit, meaning there’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to ballot procedures.
Since the matter before the justices was a procedural one about when the Democratic-led states could sue, the issue could come before the Supreme Court again and be focused on whether Trump’s order is legal.
With just months left until the November midterm elections, those states are looking to have the high court block the implementation of changes that they say would disrupt the flow of election procedures on the ground, particularly as early voting and absentee ballots will begin being sent out in some states soon.
Even if the issue comes before the justices again and if they rule in the president’s favor, it’s unclear how or if the measures in Trump’s order would be implemented by November.
A group of 24 states and the District of Columbia have filed a new lawsuit on Wednesday challenging USPS’ finalized mail-in ballot rule after the injunction was lifted and the high court said last time they sued prematurely.
They’re arguing that the USPS rule violates the Constitution and other federal statutes “many times over.” They say it would cause “significant, imminent, and irreparable” harm on the states by imposing new “burdensome” mail-in voting requirements.
One of the attorneys general trying to fight back against the administration is Colorado Democrat Phil Weiser, who is running to be the state’s next governor. He said online that the administration is trying to “exert federal control over elections” and “seize states’ constitutional authority to administer elections.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, on his podcast, argued that should the Supreme Court allow Trump’s order to move forward in the legal sense, that it is how “democracy gets dismantled.”
“I’m not going to let Trump disenfranchise Americans or rig the rules to his advantage,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act is hanging now by a thread.”
Newsom’s remarks come just months after the Supreme Court gutted some key election-related precedents. The 6-3 conservative majority narrowed the Voting Rights Act when ordering a state to redraw its congressional district map lines without race in mind.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also shared online that he was suing the administration, saying that he wanted to “remind the President” of his track record going up against him in court and winning.
He noted that nothing had changed yet in his state in regard to mail-in ballots, telling his constituents they can still vote safely and securely by mail.
It’s a sentiment that was reiterated earlier this week by Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, she posted online that the order has “no effect on Utah” but she and Attorney General Derek Brown were in close communication about the legal options.
“I assure all Utah voters that they will be defended,” she said. “We will run a secure election in accordance with state and federal law.”
The Deseret News has reached out to Henderson for a statement on the latest developments in the matter.