MaddowBlog-USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump's demands

[LetMyPeopleVote]

That it’s even a possibility the U.S. Postal Service might refuse to deliver ballots unless states comply with unnecessary demands is breathtaking.

USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump’s demands - MS NOW apple.news/A-6pmw1FfRTG...

— David C G (@docinaustin.bsky.social) 2026-06-13T18:31:59.451Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/usps-eyes-new-rule-that-would-block-ballots-in-states-that-balk-at-trumps-demands

The Trump administration’s highly aggressive efforts to obtain state voter rolls has, at least so far, failed spectacularly, losing in eight out of eight court fights.

But as such federal efforts continue, there’s apparently a new twist on the broader gambit related to state voter rolls. The New York Times reported:

The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would allow it to refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that don’t turn over voter rolls to the federal government.

The rule, proposed last week, is vaguely written but appears to establish broad authority for the agency to intervene in the mail voting process. It calls on states to compile lists of mail voters that Postal Service employees would use to screen ballots for eligibility. If states refuse to comply, the agency could refuse to send their mail ballots.

Pointing to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register last week, the Times added, “Screening mail ballots for voter eligibility … would amount to an unprecedented, and potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections.”.....

It was widely assumed that this, too, would fail in the courts, but two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, allowed the executive order to restrict mail-in voting to stand (at least for now), ruling that the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens cannot claim to have been harmed by the policy because the president’s policy had not yet been implemented.

One day after the Trump-appointed judge allowed the president’s policy to remain in place, the U.S. Postal Service proposed its new rule to require states to provide voter-level data on mail-in ballots in federal elections.

There’s still a great deal of uncertainty about how, exactly, this policy would be applied, and the legal fight is ongoing.

Indeed, the Times’ report noted recent oral arguments before a federal judge in Boston in which a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and voting rights advocates said the administration’s rule isn’t merely an unconstitutional federal intrusion into the voting process, but would also “be expensive, cumbersome and chaotic to comply with the demand to create new lists of voters and, in some cases, to change mail ballot designs, with fewer than 150 days until the 2026 general election.”

I am still pissed that Abbott gave trump all of Texas' voter data. trump has lost at least 8 cases seeking this data. As note above, the trump appointed judge denied relief because this "order" was in effect not ripe because no action has been taken to enforce it. That case is on appeal. There are other lawsuits pending.

I do not see this order ever becoming law. This case violates state rights and should not survive.

[justaprogressive]

1. K'n'R!

[PATRICK]

2. I remember 2008

The most significant mail commitment reduction in our history. And other uses of "the damage hasn't been done yet" argument and can be reversed rationale. Like inflationary prices, I have never seen reversals at all. It's a moot argument if the damage is going forward into its "now push the button too late!" phase. Especially for an election! I suppose legal experts will back the judge on this, but it shouldn't be unless the approach of the plaintiffs was wrong.

Instead of the Voting Rights Act, the all powerful wizard of the executive gets to prohibit states from conducting elections(by mail or otherwise) on a fake premise with prejudicial lists for political advantage. Jim Crow for the absolutist monarch.

By just our system limitations it is INHERENTLY disenfranchising of voter rights and mailer rights. If you believe otherwise you believe AI is always right and can do anything. And our Postal software is no AI.