USPS publishes rule to block mail-in ballots from states that don't provide voter lists
Headline: USPS Finalizes Rule Requiring Voter Lists for Mail‑In Ballots, but Court Block Stalls Implementation
The United States Postal Service released a final rule Friday that would compel any state planning to use the agency for mail‑in voting to hand over the names and addresses of every voter who receives a ballot. The regulation, which ties into a March executive order from President Donald Trump, also mandates that each outbound ballot and its return envelope bear a uniquely serialized Intelligent Mail barcode to allow the Postal Service to track the movement of every piece of mail.
According to the rule, states must notify the Postal Service at least 90 days before an election of their intention to send ballots through the mail and must supply a full list of eligible voters at least 60 days before the election. The list would be entered into a “Mail‑In and Absentee Participation List” that the agency would maintain. The barcode requirement is intended to let the USPS verify that the number of ballots a state says it sends matches the number that actually passes through the postal system.
The move is an attempt to fulfill a March 31 directive from Trump that called for tighter oversight of mail‑in voting, citing concerns about ballot integrity. “Any state that intends to receive mail‑in or absentee ballots from individual voters through the Postal Service must ensure that such individuals have been enrolled with the Postal Service for inclusion on the state's Mail‑In and Absentee Participation List,” the rule states.
The regulation, however, cannot take effect while a federal injunction remains in place. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama‑appointed jurist, issued a preliminary injunction in June blocking the portion of Trump’s order that deals with the Postal Service and mail‑in ballots. In July, Talwani extended that injunction, effectively preventing the USPS from putting the rule into practice.
The legal challenge originated in the case League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. The plaintiffs argued that the executive order overstepped constitutional boundaries by imposing federal requirements on state election administration without congressional authorization. The judge agreed, finding that the provisions violated the separation of powers.
The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, has countered that the court’s review is premature. In a filing opposing the injunction’s renewal, the DOJ argued that the plaintiffs cannot show any concrete injury until the rule actually takes effect. “Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they suffer any particularized injury from ongoing policymaking deliberations within the Executive Branch,” the filing said.
Postmaster General David Steiner defended the regulation when it was first floated in June, saying the agency simply wants to “match the ballots that a state believes they’re sending out to what actually gets sent out.” The White House echoed that sentiment. Spokesperson Lauren Bis said the administration “will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact – which includes the safety and security of American elections.”
The finalized rule is slated for official publication on Aug. 26. If a higher court lifts the injunction before the upcoming midterm elections, the requirements would apply to those contests. Otherwise, the rule will remain on hold, leaving states to proceed with existing mail‑in procedures.
Voting‑rights advocates have raised concerns about the additional administrative burden on states and the privacy implications of sharing detailed voter rolls with a federal agency. Supporters counter that the tracking measures will curb fraud and increase public confidence in the electoral process.
As the case works its way through the courts, election officials across the country are watching closely, uncertain whether the new requirements will be in place in time for the November midterms.
