A federal appeals court refused to revive President Trump’s scheme to have the U.S. Postal Service oversee mail-in voting and refuse to deliver ballots it deems invalid, ruling Thursday that the federal government didn’t make a convincing case for why it should move forward.
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was unlikely that Congress intended for the post office to wield such power over elections. A three-judge panel agreed with a lower court that said Mr. Trump’s plans were “likely unlawful.”
“The district court concluded, and we agree, that the final rule is likely a regulation of the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, which the Elections Clause of the Constitution assigns to the states and Congress, and not to an executive agency, such as the Postal Service, acting without congressional authorization,” the court said.
The panel also said the Postal Service hasn’t proved it could properly carry out Mr. Trump’s plans, and allowing it to proceed could risk “chaos and widespread disenfranchisement.”
Nor, the court said, did the administration prove there’s a wave of voter fraud, either in the past or coming in the Nov. 3 election, that would justify the draconian steps.
“Appellants’ stay motion before this court did not grapple with much of the district court’s reasoning or its factual findings, and thus appellants have failed to meet their burden for disturbing any aspect of the district court’s preliminary injunction order,” the judges, all Democratic appointees, said in an unsigned order.
Even before the ruling, the Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to step in and revive the postal service’s election-policing plans.
Briefs were still being filed in that case Thursday.
Mr. Trump is not just battling the courts, he’s also losing to the election calendar.
North Carolina and Alabama began sending some ballots through the mail this week, and other states will quickly follow.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the administration is trying to combat potential voter fraud, and giving the post office powers to police which ballots are mailed is part of that.
Under Mr. Trump’s vision, the post office would require states to submit lists of all valid voters, and the postal service would then refuse to deliver ballots to recipients not on the list.
Mr. Sauer told the justices in a brief last week that if the court didn’t act soon, states won’t be able to comply with the mail rules, should the courts eventually find that the president is on firm footing.
Mr. Trump’s aides say that the post office isn’t trying to interfere with the election, nor with states’ ability to run it. Mr. Sauer cast the post office’s role as a ministerial one, scrutinizing what sorts of things are put into the mail.
The government has compared its restrictions on mailed ballots to postal service rules on sending human remains through the post.
But the First Circuit rejected that reasoning, saying the post office’s plan “explicitly and exclusively regulates election mail.”
California was one of the lead plaintiffs challenging Mr. Trump, and Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed Thursday’s ruling.
“The rule of law continues to slap down Trump’s dangerous and un-American attacks on our democracy,” the Democratic governor said.
California is one of eight states that run an all-mail election, meaning election officials send ballots to every registered voter by default.
Mr. Trump says mailed ballots are more susceptible to fraud, though he himself has cast ballots by mail while living at the White House.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.