In a strong dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the Court’s decision grants the President unprecedented power, exceeding even that of the English monarch the Founders rebelled against. The Constitution, its history, and established practices all indicate that Congress can indeed limit the President’s ability to remove heads of commissions. This ruling effectively allows the President to act in defiance of laws they are sworn to execute, transforming their duty into an unchecked authority.
Read More
The Supreme Court has ruled that Mississippi can continue to count absentee ballots received after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. This 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejected a Republican challenge that argued such votes are invalid under federal law. The ruling affirmed that federal election statutes do not prevent states from accepting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within a grace period afterward, a principle that allows lawful ballots cast on time to be counted. This outcome impacts ongoing efforts to restrict mail-in voting and is seen as a victory for voter access, despite a dissenting opinion arguing it postpones the electorate’s final decision.
Read More
President Trump has repeatedly claimed that widespread voter fraud invalidates election results, and his focus on this issue extends to proposed legislation requiring complex ID requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting. A recent remark about California’s primary election results suggests the president may not understand how votes are mechanically counted in the state, particularly mail-in ballots. Trump claimed that a phone call to federal prosecutors influenced the outcome for a Republican candidate, Steve Hilton, when in reality, the vote tabulation, which initially favored Republicans due to mail-in ballot returns, simply took time to finalize. This incident highlights the president’s belief in his ability to manipulate election outcomes and his general disregard for established electoral processes.
Read More
The recent assertion that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) might withhold mail-in ballot delivery unless states provide voter rolls to the Trump administration raises significant alarms about the integrity of the electoral process. This kind of statement, if accurate, suggests a direct attempt at election interference, leveraging a vital public service for political gain. The implications are profound, touching upon fundamental principles of democracy and the right to vote.
The core of the concern lies in the potential politicization of the USPS. Its mission is to provide universal postal service, not to act as an arm of any political administration, especially in matters as sensitive as elections.… Continue reading
A new legal filing is raising alarm bells, alleging that President Trump’s executive order targeting mail-in voting is not only “flagrantly unconstitutional” but is already being put into practice, demanding immediate intervention. Democrats are arguing forcefully that no one genuinely disputes the unlawful nature of this order, which seeks to establish federal voter registration lists, and they are imploring the courts to step in and block it before it can sow confusion and disenfranchise voters.
The core of the issue lies in President Trump’s March executive order that mandated the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) only send mail ballots to voters whose names appear on lists compiled and controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration.… Continue reading
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 More
It appears there are some significant plans brewing within the U.S. Postal Service regarding mail-in voting, and the sentiment around these potential changes is quite charged. At the heart of the matter is a proposed rule change that could fundamentally alter how mail-in ballots are handled. The core of this proposal, as understood, involves the Postal Service establishing a process where states would need to notify them about who is being sent mail-in or absentee ballots. This notification would include unique barcodes associated with each voter’s ballot envelope, allowing for the creation of a “Mail-In and Absentee Participation List.” This list, maintained by the federal government, would then dictate who receives ballots, rather than the existing state-run systems.… Continue reading
A U.S. judge has permitted President Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting to proceed, a setback for Democrats who argued it could disenfranchise millions. The order directs federal agencies to compile lists of eligible U.S. citizens and requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on approved mail-in lists, while also mandating states preserve election records for five years. Democrats contended that relying on potentially outdated federal data for citizenship lists risked improperly excluding lawful voters and infringed upon states’ rights to regulate elections.
Read More
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has declined to temporarily block President Trump’s executive order concerning mail-in voting. The order, issued on March 31, directs federal agencies to create lists of eligible U.S. citizens and requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to individuals on these lists. While the judge acknowledged that future actions could warrant renewed challenges, preliminary relief was deemed unwarranted at this time. This ruling leaves the executive order in effect for now, pending further legal developments and potential decisions from other courts considering similar challenges.
Read More
The notion that a judge has allowed for the implementation of an executive order concerning mail-in voting, particularly one initiated by former President Trump, immediately sparks a complex debate about constitutional authority and electoral integrity. The core of the issue appears to hinge on the fundamental understanding that the regulation of voting procedures historically rests with individual state legislatures. Many express profound disagreement with any judicial interpretation that seems to circumvent this established principle, viewing it as a disregard for the very fabric of American governance.
There’s a palpable frustration that such decisions might be perceived as catering to political expediency rather than upholding legal and constitutional standards.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood