States push back on mail-in voting restrictions after SCOTUS loss

In addition to the mail-related challenges, states say they're forced to prepare for an influx of in-person voters who typically vote by mail but decide not to do so because of the last-minute changes.(CN) — Two dozen states and the District of Columbia filed suit Wednesday seeking to block a U.S. Postal Service rule that tightens rules for mail-in voting months before the November midterm election.On Monday, a Supreme Court ruling dashed an earlier challenge to President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order requiring the creation of lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state — and directing USPS to send mail ballots only to verified voters. In light of that ruling, a Massachusetts federal judge lifted a nationwide injunction on Wednesday, as the coalition of mostly the same states plus D.C. set their sights on a new challenge.In Wednesday’s lawsuit, also filed in Massachusetts federal court, the states say the USPS rule interferes with their authority to run their own elections, a power that rests with state governments.“Congress has not afforded USPS any authority whatsoever to set rules for federal elections or mail voting, even though Americans have cast ballots by mail for generations,” the states write in the 53-page lawsuit.The rule, which falls under Trump’s executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” is already costing the states money and creating logistical issues, they say, requiring them to immediately redesign ballot envelopes, get them reviewed by USPS and “develop new systems at breakneck speed” to get voter lists to USPS and ensure all eligible voters receive mail ballots.States also have to create new guidance for election officials, train them and educate the public about the changes to mail-in voting.In addition to the mail-related challenges, states say they’re forced to prepare for an influx of in-person voters who typically vote by mail but decide not to do so because of the last-minute changes.“In short, they must accomplish multiple Herculean tasks, each necessary to address the disruption caused by the rule, in a matter of weeks, with limited resources,” the states say.Lauren Bis, a spokesperson for the White House, called Monday’s 6-3 Supreme Court conservative supermajority ruling a “major win for the security of American elections” and slammed opposition from Democrat-led states.“Radical Democrats continue to oppose commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders. The Trump administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our elections,” Bis said in an email.The Supreme Court ruling forced U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who declared the USPS rule unconstitutional, to vacate her preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from compiling citizenship lists for the plaintiffs — about half the states in the nation.Noting that she was compelled to rule against them by the Supreme Court, Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, allowed the plaintiff states the opportunity to refile in that proceeding, in which they have joined forces with the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and other voting rights groups.At the high court, the justices said in an unsigned order that Trump was likely to succeed in arguing the federal court lacks the jurisdiction to block enforcement of his order, since it had yet to take effect, and thus the states hadn’t suffered any harm.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, dissented, writing that the ruling “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads