Trump Faces Late-Night Court Setback on Mail-In Voting

In a significant legal blow to former President Donald Trump's efforts to influence the upcoming elections, a federal judge issued a late-night order that effectively blocks his administration's controversial mail-in voting scheme. The ruling, handed down at 12:30 AM, Monday morning, by Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, prevents the United States Postal Service (USPS) from implementing new rules that would have drastically altered the processing of mail-in ballots.

The core of Trump's scheme involved the USPS adopting a final rule requiring all absentee and mail-in ballots in federal elections to be transmitted only in envelopes satisfying new design requirements. Furthermore, these ballots would only be sent to voters verified by the postal service as having been enrolled in a newly created "federal ballot mail portal." This portal would mandate state election officials to input voter and ballot identification information into the system, create and disseminate state-specific mail-in and absentee participant lists, and make the distribution of outbound federal ballot mail contingent on compliance with this entire regulatory regime.

Judge Nichols' ruling asserts that the USPS lacked the authority to issue and enforce these rules without explicit congressional approval. He stated that "no statute grants the postal service the power to issue key parts of the rule," and that the plaintiffs (various states and voting rights groups) are likely to succeed on their claims that the issuance of the rule was "ultra vires," meaning beyond its legal power or authority.

This decision comes after a similar ruling by Judge Talwani in a Massachusetts federal court, an Obama-appointed judge, who also blocked the rule. The Trump regime had previously attacked Judge Talwani, labeling her an "Obama appointee" and a "left-wing activist." However, Judge Nichols' ruling, coming from a judge appointed by Trump himself, significantly strengthens the legal position against the mail-in voting changes.

The judge's order highlights that the Postal Reorganization Act does not authorize the USPS to impose new election procedures on state election officials, create a data collection system for mail-in and absentee voters, or refuse the transmission of lawful mail because it fails to meet these data collection requirements. The court emphasized that while the Act grants the postal service powers incidental, necessary, or appropriate to its functions, the defendants (the Trump administration) failed to show how the creation of state-specific mail-in and absentee participant lists or the refusal to mail envelopes not registered on those lists are necessary or incidental to the specific powers delineated in the Act.

This ruling is particularly noteworthy given the timing and the judge's background. Judge Nichols' decision to issue an identical order to that of an Obama-appointed judge, and to do so late at night, suggests a strategic move to preempt further challenges and solidify the legal stance against Trump's efforts. It also aligns with recent actions by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, who has twice sided with the Missouri State Supreme Court in ruling against gerrymandered maps, emphasizing that elections are "states' rights issues."

The implications of this ruling are substantial. It means that Trump's attempt to use the postal service to create a "Trump voter list" and potentially disenfranchise voters who do not meet his administration's criteria has been thwarted. The judge's decision underscores the principle that states, not the federal government or the postal service, have the primary authority to run elections. This legal setback for Trump's election strategy is a victory for voting rights advocates and a reaffirmation of established election procedures.

The Supreme Court is currently sitting on a ruling related to Judge Talwani's block of the USPS rule, and this new ruling from Judge Nichols is expected to influence their decision. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will likely deny Trump's emergency appeal, further solidifying the illegality of his administration's attempts to alter mail-in voting procedures.

This case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding election integrity and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional principles. The consistent rulings from both liberal and conservative-leaning judges against Trump's postal service scheme send a clear message: attempts to manipulate election procedures outside of established legal frameworks will not stand.