By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An executive order from President Trump, instructing the USPS to withhold ballots in states without federal access to voter lists, faces significant opposition. Congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general are actively pursuing legal challenges to block this order, arguing it unlawfully encroaches on states’ constitutional authority to manage elections and could effectively eliminate mail-in voting. Their efforts include an appeal at the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals and a separate case before a federal judge in Boston, both seeking swift rulings to prevent potential disenfranchisement. This executive order is presented as part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration attempting to influence the electoral process.
Read the original article here
Experts are raising serious concerns that a recent executive order signed by President Trump could effectively eliminate the ability for many Americans to vote by mail, a method that has become increasingly vital for accessibility and convenience. The order, which was reportedly signed in March, specifically instructs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to refrain from delivering ballots in any states that have not granted the federal government access to their voter lists. This provision is seen by many as a direct challenge to the constitutional authority of states to manage their own elections, with some legal experts and state officials arguing it is patently unlawful.
The core of the concern lies in how this order would impact states that have embraced vote-by-mail as their primary or sole method of conducting elections. In places like Oregon, for instance, voting exclusively by mail has been the norm for decades, with no in-person voting options available. The USPS plays a crucial role in this system by delivering ballots to registered voters and then collecting them for return, either through mail or designated drop-off locations. If the USPS is prohibited from delivering these ballots under the terms of the new order, it would essentially disenfranchise the entire electorate in such states.
Critics of the order highlight that it represents a federal overreach into state-controlled election processes. The U.S. Constitution clearly outlines that states are responsible for administering elections, and this executive order appears to usurp that fundamental right. The idea of federalizing elections, rather than being an unintended consequence, is viewed by some as the explicit intent behind such measures. This move is seen as a power grab designed to influence election outcomes, particularly by making voting more difficult for certain demographics.
The potential ramifications extend beyond states with universal vote-by-mail systems. Many workers, especially those in lower-income brackets, rely on mail-in ballots as the only practical way to cast their vote due to inflexible work schedules and the lack of mandated time off for voting on Election Day. The executive order, by potentially disrupting mail-in voting, could disproportionately affect these working-class individuals, who may find it significantly harder to vote in person. This outcome aligns with a broader concern that Republican policies often disadvantage the working poor.
Furthermore, the move is viewed by some as a tactic to gain an electoral advantage, stemming from a perceived inability to win free and fair elections. The demand for access to voter lists from states that refuse to comply is seen as a prelude to further federal intervention, including threats to funding. The escalation of actions, from demanding lists to potentially withholding federal funds and now altering USPS delivery protocols for ballots, suggests a determined effort to control the election process.
The legality of an executive order overriding state election laws is also being called into question. Many argue that an executive order does not hold the force of law and cannot supersede the constitutional rights of states to manage their elections. Despite this legal understanding, there is a fear that such orders, even if legally dubious, could create enough disruption and confusion to impact election results, especially if they are challenged and potentially escalated to the Supreme Court.
There’s a significant irony noted by many that the President himself has utilized mail-in voting in recent elections, a fact that makes the push to restrict it for others appear disingenuous. This contradiction fuels the belief that the order is driven by a desire to suppress votes rather than genuine concerns about election integrity. The argument is that if mail-in voting is good enough for the President, it should be available to all citizens.
The broader political context suggests that this executive order is part of a larger strategy by the Republican party to hinder voting access, particularly in areas where they perceive a disadvantage. The party’s reliance on tactics like gerrymandering is often cited as evidence of a strategy to secure victories when popular support might be lacking. By making voting more difficult, especially through mail, they aim to suppress turnout among demographics that tend to vote for opposing parties.
The disruption caused by this order could force states to explore alternative methods for ballot collection, such as expanding in-person early voting options or establishing statewide holidays for voting. However, for states with established mail-in systems, this could require significant logistical and financial adjustments, potentially leading to a less seamless voting experience.
Ultimately, the sentiment expressed by many experts is that this executive order is a transparent attempt to manipulate the electoral process. The move is seen not as a flaw in the system, but as a deliberate effort to suppress votes and tilt election outcomes. The hope remains that states will resist this federal overreach, and that the courts will ultimately uphold the right of states to conduct their elections as they deem fit, safeguarding the fundamental right to vote for all citizens. The very idea that an executive order could undermine a foundational democratic process is deeply concerning to a wide range of observers.