10
Loading video...
By Steve Mollman
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A group of Republican election officials has urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to allow President Donald Trump's mail-ballot rule to take effect before November's midterm elections, arguing that implementing the changes now would risk confusion, delays and disruptions to voting.
The move is notable because it comes from Republican election officials rather than only voting-rights groups or Democratic officials. It gained added significance Thursday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to pause a lower-court injunction blocking the rule. The appellate court found the government had not shown it was likely to succeed and pointed to the lower court's conclusion that states may be unable to comply with the rule's requirements before the November 3 election.
The developments add pressure to the Trump administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which is being asked to revive the ballot-mail provisions after they were blocked by a federal judge in Massachusetts. The White House argues the measures are necessary to protect election integrity, while opponents contend they would create logistical problems and exceed federal authority.
Read More on Politics
Newsweek reached out to the White House and attorney Brent Herrin, counsel for the election officials, for comment.
Republicans Cite Election Risks
The filing was signed by 38 current and former election officials from 10 states, including Republican Secretaries of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, Scott Schwab of Kansas, Michael Adams of Kentucky, David Scanlan of New Hampshire, Michael Howe of North Dakota and Monae Johnson of South Dakota, as well as Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson.
The officials stressed that their filing was not intended to endorse or oppose the rule itself. Instead, they argued it cannot realistically be implemented before the midterms.
"Attempting to implement the Rule now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials," the brief states.
The filing notes that absentee ballots have already begun going out in some states and that federal law requires states to send ballots to military and overseas voters by September 19. Election administrators would also have to comply with new envelope requirements, use a federal ballot portal that officials say has not been fully tested and implement additional verification procedures, according to the brief.
The officials also pointed to the Supreme Court's Purcell doctrine, a legal principle that generally discourages courts from making significant changes to election rules close to an election because of the risk of voter confusion and administrative disruption. The brief argues that the November election should be conducted under the rules that were in place when election preparations began.
"Election administrators deserve a clear roadmap to successfully deliver a free, fair, and fast election. We already have that in Georgia," Raffensperger spokesman Robert Sinners told Newsweek on Thursday. "To serve their communities effectively, they need certainty and last-minute changes undermine that. The Purcell doctrine is clear on this."
Raffensperger is perhaps the best-known signatory because of his long-running disputes with Trump over election administration dating back to the 2020 election.
...
Appeals Court Echoes Concerns
The First Circuit's ruling mirrored many of the concerns raised by the Republican officials.
Perhaps most notably, the appeals court said there was no evidence of impending voter fraud that would outweigh the risks posed by the changes, writing that the rule would likely result in "the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal, if any, gains in combating voter fraud."
In denying the administration's request for a stay, the court pointed to findings that states would need USPS approval for redesigned ballot envelopes, would have to replace envelopes already ordered, create systems capable of generating voter-specific barcodes and upload information into a USPS portal that is "still not operational."
The appellate panel also noted the lower court's conclusion that it would be "impossible for States to comply with the Final Rule's detailed requirements in the time remaining before the November 3 election."
The court further cited concerns about "the chaos and widespread disenfranchisement" that could result if the rule were implemented immediately, including delays related to envelope approvals, technical requirements and large-scale ballot verification.
The group asked the court to ensure that the November election is conducted under "the rules that were in place when its administration began," arguing that questions about the rule's legality can be resolved before the 2028 election.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines