Supreme Court rejects Trump’s restrictions on mail voting

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s restrictions on mail voting

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a Trump administration plan to dramatically change how Americans vote by mail in the lead-up to the midterm elections, a major loss for President Trump, who has long claimed without evidence that fraud is rampant in mail voting.

The ruling was a resounding win for Democratic-led states and voting rights groups, which had argued that the plan was unconstitutional and an existential threat to the democratic process.

The Trump administration’s efforts, they had said, would introduce chaos and confusion as early voting gears up in many states.

Still, the weekslong legal tussle over the issue may have sown its own kind of confusion, a victory of sorts for Mr. Trump as he seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote in an election his party might lose.

The majority provided a one-paragraph explanation for the ruling, writing that the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”

The order was unsigned, which is typical in emergency rulings. It gave no vote count. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The battle over the Trump administration’s plan to change mail-in voting has played out over the last few weeks in a dizzying series of legal developments, even as states began sending out ballots.

Trump administration lawyers had urged the justices to step in and clear the way for its plan to use the Postal Service to screen ballot envelopes after they are submitted by state elections officials. The new rules would require states to submit lists of voters approved to receive mail ballots. The Postal Service would then deliver mail ballots only to the voters on the lists.

The plan would also require states to use an envelope approved by the Postal Service, including a unique bar code for each voter. Some states have argued that redesigning ballots so close to the election would be challenging or perhaps impossible, causing delays.

  • Credits: The New York Times
  • Author: Abbie VanSickle
  • Photo: Rebecca Noble

Compartir:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn

Aprietan a Amílcar para acalambrar a Andy

Claudio Ochoa Huerta ___________________________ Son más de 203 páginas. Un archivo de análisis e investigación que solo pocos pueden hacer en este país. En la primera cuartilla, aparece la fotografía del susodicho. Su fecha de nacimiento, su domicilio, su celular, su correo, su número de seguridad social. En la segunda, todos los datos de su mamá, de su papá, de su hermana, de su hermano. Las redes sociales de cada uno, los números celulares. En la tercera, sus cuentas de

Leer más »
El Niño 2.0, ¿estamos preparados para enfrentar este calentamiento global? Destaca alcalde hermandad binacional en celebración de Independencia en El Paso Tx Ichijuv llama a los jóvenes a formar la segunda generación de «Embajadores del Cambio» How bad will this year’s flu season be? Destinarán 88 mil millones de pesos al sector agrícola, un 13.4% más que el año anterior Guerra abierta en Morena - Carlos Loret de Mola Todo listo para el desfile cívico – militar de la Independencia de México Inaugura IPACULT exposición «Todos estamos rotos» en el Museo de El Chamizal Bears in Los Angeles are getting their close-ups, ready or not Aviadores de Taddei cobran 6 mdp en el INE; 8 trabajadores no acreditaron sus servicios NASA e IBM presentan su modelo de Inteligencia Artificial para explorar la Luna Video: La caída de México en educación en la cuenta de Morena | Jesús Silva-Herzog M.