USPS restricts mail-in ballots
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
USPS published a 95-page final rule restricting mail-in ballots, despite court injunctions. The rule would require states to share voter data and barcodes, potentially disrupting the 2026 midterms.
Background
President Trump signed an executive order in March directing the USPS to restrict mail-in voting, which he has long claimed is prone to fraud. The order was blocked by federal courts, but the USPS published a final rule on August 21 to implement it if the injunctions are lifted. The rule would require states to provide voter data and use barcoded envelopes, and the USPS would reject ballots from non-compliant states. Voting rights groups argue it could disenfranchise voters and undermine election confidence.
How it unfolded
- Mar 31, 2026President Trump signed an executive order directing the USPS to restrict mail-in voting and create state-by-state lists of eligible voters.
- Apr 2, 2026Voting-rights groups filed a lawsuit claiming the order was unconstitutional and could disenfranchise voters.
- Jul 2026A U.S. appeals court upheld a district judge's injunction blocking the order's implementation.
- Aug 21, 2026USPS published a 95-page final rule detailing how it would implement the restrictions if the injunction is lifted.
- Aug 24, 2026The Supreme Court cleared one roadblock for the administration, but a separate nationwide injunction keeps the rule blocked for now.
Who’s saying what
- Official
- The USPS argues the rule is necessary to ensure compliance with federal law and imposes only modest requirements for ballot preparation and envelope design.
- Critics
- Voting rights groups and Issue One's Michael McNulty say the rule 'weaponizes' USPS to take over elections and shift postal workers from neutral transporters to federal gatekeepers.
Still unverified
The rule's actual impact on voter turnout and election integrity is disputed; critics claim it could disenfranchise voters, while supporters say it ensures security. The Supreme Court's final decision on the injunction is pending.