Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow new limits on mail ballots

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for a sweeping executive order that would place major new restrictions on mail-in voting for November’s midterm elections.

A divided panel of a Massachusetts-based appeals court last week upheld a federal judge’s block on the order, finding that it would “sow confusion” and “threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.” Judges appointed by Joe Biden and George W. Bush voted for the block, while a Trump appointee voted against it.

In the administration’s filings with the high court, the Justice Department said that the executive order lays out general policies and that agencies have yet to finalize rules on based on it, so it was premature for courts to block it.

The Supreme Court appeal is part of a push by President Donald Trump and his allies to put fresh limits on voting ahead of the pivotal elections where control of both the House and the Senate is at stake. Trump claims that voting irregularities are widespread, despite a lack of evidence.

The president has been pressing the Senate to pass the Save America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship to register and to show photo identification when voting. He also gave a primetime television address in mid-July reiterating debunked claims about vulnerabilities in election systems, and he fired members of a bipartisan elections commission.

Trump has long made false claims that mail-in voting is rife with fraud and has blamed it, in part, for his loss to Biden in the 2020 presidential election. He unsuccessfully demanded that the counting of mail-in ballots be suspended in that contest.

In March, Trump issued an executive order that required states to compile lists of eligible voters based on information provided by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

The order prohibits the Postal Service from sending mail-in ballots to anyone not on the lists. It also requires that mail-in ballots be delivered to voters in secure envelopes with bar codes to facilitate tracking. The order allows the federal government to withhold funding from states that don’t comply.

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said during a signing ceremony for the order. “I think this will help a lot with elections.”

Nearly two dozen states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration soon after the order was issued, arguing that it was unlawful and its true goal was voter suppression. They said the lists were likely to miss many eligible voters.

“The President’s latest attempt to interfere with the States’ administration of their elections is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to restrict voter eligibility or mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government.”

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued a summary judgment against the executive order in June, ruling that the president lacked constitutional authority to order changes to how states and local governments administer elections.

The Constitution assigns states the primary authority over election administration and gives Congress the ability to set national standards for elections, but the president’s role is more circumscribed.

Talwani, who was nominated by Barack Obama, also found that the order would present logistical and financial challenges for states. Most were already preparing to issue mail-in ballots for fall elections, and some would have to purchase new envelopes and make other changes to comply with the order.

The ruling does not apply to states that were not parties to the lawsuit, or elections after November’s midterms.

The Trump administration did not appeal Talwani’s ruling on the legality of the executive order but on the grounds of whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.

“The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order,” the administration wrote.

The Supreme Court gave the states until Monday to respond to the administration’s appeal. The justices could rule after the administration responds to the states’ filing.

In May, a federal judge in D.C. allowed the executive order to stand in a separate lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and voting rights groups. Judge Carl J. Nichols ruled that an injunction was premature because the administration was still developing guidelines related to the order.