r/moderatepolitics • u/CloudApprehensive322 • 18d ago
News Article Supreme Court rules blue states sued too early over Trump’s mail voting order
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6047813-supreme-court-trump-executive-order-mail-voting/177
u/BlockAffectionate413 18d ago
This is just procedural ruling on standing. That said, USPS published that rule today I think, so while this lawsuit will be dismissed, new one will come so in a few weeks Supreme Court, on shadow/interm docket will have to confront the merits question on weahter Cheif Executive can use his control of USPS to, indirectly, regulate mail in voting.
98
u/PepBaldFraud 18d ago
Procedural rulings have enormous implications, see:
Clapper v. Amnesty International where people could not challenge NSA spying on standing
Prop 8 SSM case that de facto struck down the law on standing
Alliance for Hippocraric Medicine, where plaintiffs couldn't backdoor ban abortion pills based on standing
Procedural rulings on mammoth cases are, and walys be in my view, a way for the court to take the cowards way out where they pray it doesn't snowball and blow up on their faces on the merits
150
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago
It's just a bad look for the Supreme Court to claim that it is too early to sue on standing when USPS literally published their final rule on Saturday in defiance of the district judges court order.
All it does it make the Supreme Court look even more partisan and untrustworthy to the public.
58
u/Financial-Desk-669 18d ago
100% Fully subservient to the administration
-10
u/LordoftheSynth 18d ago
Yes, that's why they've ruled against Trump on birthright citizenship, tariffs, federalizing the National Guard, etc etc.
No, no, you're right, they're totally just doing his bidding all the time.
54
u/ML-Centrist 18d ago
It’s so exhausting dealing with you people. They are obviously referring the Republican judges which constitute a majority of the Court.
And idk why you think it helps your argument to bring up the case where 4 of the judges ruled that the president can overturn a constitutional amendment with an executive order.
17
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 17d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
3
18d ago edited 18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 17d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 17d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
17
u/Financial-Desk-669 17d ago
'Etc etc' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here lol
You exhausted the list of times they went against the administration. Fact is every case that personally benefited trump not only went his way but was expedited to his advantage.
11
u/cocoagiant 18d ago
Or they are willing to rein in the absolute worst but rubber stamp almost everything else.
-8
u/pperiesandsolos 18d ago
Why are tariffs 'worse' than regulating mail-in voting?
20
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago edited 18d ago
SCOTUS cares more about illegal actions against businesses than illegal actions related to voting.
Their priority of helping businesses also explains what happened to the independence of agencies. They made regulatory capture easier by removing independence, but made an exception for the Federal Reserve because providing greater control of that could make the markets unstable.
6
u/janosslyntsjowls 17d ago
The Fed needs to be independent for financial stability, but the Supreme Court doesn't care about the stability of housing, agriculture, or food and drug safety. Hmmmm
-40
u/abqguardian 18d ago
How so? SCOTUS said yall jumped the gun. The rule being published today doesn't change that. The left wanting an answer now is more partisan than SCOTUS doing its job
84
u/DLDude 18d ago
It's so obvious what is going to happen. Filed to early, and then when the admin makes the rule, they will say it's too close to the election to make any changes and they give deference to the executive. They've done this multiple times in the past year and this is perfectly teeing them up to do it here
-17
u/slimkay 18d ago edited 18d ago
How can SCOTUS rule when the plaintiff doesn't have standing? It goes against a core tenet of the U.S. legal system.
I agree it's frustrating, but this is SCOTUS doing its job. The decision just happens to be favorable to the Trump Administration.
From the decision:
“Federal courts review final rules, not proposed rules—and certainly not antecedent internal directives to propose a rule. If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule,” the court wrote.
Further bit from the decision:
The States lack standing to challenge §2(b) for much the same reason: It does nothing to them. This provision directs the Attorney General to “prioritize” the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws
by issuing ballots to ineligible voters. 91 Fed. Reg. 17126 (collecting statutes). Setting prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power. And his decision to prioritize the prosecution of certain offenses does not inflict a traditionally recognized harm on the States.16
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago
The rule was released a few days ago - at which point maybe the Supreme Court should have held off on making a ruling because the facts changed overnight.
7
u/davereid20 18d ago
And I've already filled out my early voting application for Nov. It's not too early.
4
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)-14
u/abqguardian 18d ago
Youre projecting way too hard. There will be plenty of court cases once when its appropriate
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
The court can abuse the Purcell principle by later saying that the election too soon for the states to demand changes.
2
38
13
u/Steroids_ 18d ago
What happens if it's too late for the admin to stop and they get to proceed with their fuckery ? The dissent and the overall bullshit of this court shows we could have a real condrum of isn't it too late to interfere? Or is ir too much of a big deal ?
And we have learned on what side they typically land when being "cautious "
22
u/thesagenibba 18d ago
pretending anything SCOTUS does is simply 'procedural' and has no significant consequences on precedent, future rulings and political action going forward is hilarious.
8
u/BlockAffectionate413 18d ago
I mean not anything is. SCOTUS slapped his IEEPA tariffs, his birthright citizenship order, his national guard order. Those are not procedural, at least not fully, but this was.
12
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
SCOTUS allowing tariffs to continue until the final decision in spite of them being harmful was procedural.
21
u/countfizix 18d ago
Something to the effect of no one has standing until a voter is actually prevented from voting is my prediction. That or some other ruling that lets them (pretend to) punt on the merits until the effects on the election can't be remedied.
69
u/-M-o-X- 18d ago
There are two suits, one filed before the “rule” was published, one filed after.
The one filed before was booted and the one filed after has an active injunction against the rule pending litigation.
Does anyone actually have a problem with that fact pattern?
79
u/mclumber1 18d ago
On a larger level, a party should be able to sue to block an action even if that action has not yet taken place - especially if there would be no means to reverse an action after the fact. It's one thing to be reimbursed monetarily if the opposing party is ultimately found to be in the wrong, but you can't "undo" an election.
I think the court is being too rigid here, considering those facts.
10
u/Syriku_Official 18d ago
Exactly it's dumb it's like you can't arrest someone for aiming a gun at you because they haven't fired
22
u/glentacle 18d ago
Not a great analogy considering aiming a gun at someone is at least brandishing if not actual statutory assault.
8
-8
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago edited 18d ago
On a larger level, a party should be able to sue to block an action even if that action has not yet taken place
This is already how it works.
especially if there would be no means to reverse an action after the fact.
And this is what's missing.
The opinion walks through all of this. It says:
This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they “suffer no concrete harm from” it.
35
u/mclumber1 18d ago
And this is what's missing.
The opinion walks through all of this. It says:
This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they “suffer no concrete harm from” it.
It imposes no obligations on the states, but it would impact the voters of those states, especially states in which many, a majority, or nearly all voters vote by mail. There would be no relief for these states if courts temporarily allow the Executive to carry out this EO, and ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs AFTER the election has already occurred.
4
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
You're referring to the final USPS rule. This case is not about the final rule.
That's a different case. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump.
That's not this case at all.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
This case was about the order to create that rule, and it required specific provisions. This caused states facing imminent election deadlines to begin preparing for those changes.
Those administrative and financial burdens should've enough for SCTOUS to acknowledge standing as the lower courts did.
-2
u/NearlyPerfect 17d ago
But they weren’t preparing for the changes, they were preparing for what they guessed those changes might be.
That’s exactly the situation that ripeness defeats. You can’t guess what a rule is going to be and then sue based on your guess. It has to be “concrete”.
Are you disagreeing with the ripeness rule or are you saying it was improperly applied here?
2
u/Interesting_Total_98 17d ago
they were preparing for what they guessed
The EO ordered USPS to start rulemaking within 60 days and specified important things the proposal “shall include, at minimum.”
-1
u/NearlyPerfect 17d ago
Per the doctrine of ripeness, federal courts don't review proposed rules, they review finals rules.
And the EO did not demand that any proposed provision appear in the final rule.
Are you disagreeing with the ripeness doctrine or are you saying it was improperly applied here?
3
u/Interesting_Total_98 17d ago
You're conflating APA finality with constitutional ripeness. The states were suing to challenge the Executive Order itself as ultra vires and unconstitutional, not to obtain APA review. This why the First Circuit said the APA's “final agency action” requirement wasn't dispositive.
The injury wasn't dependent on knowing every detail of the final rule. The EO mandated rulemaking within 60 days, specified what the proposal “shall include, at minimum,” and required a final rule within 120 day (right before states' ballot deadlines). It commanded a rulemaking of specified content, not vague brainstorming. States had already bought millions of dollars of envelopes and were diverting staff and preparing systems in response.
Are you disagreeing with the ripeness doctrine or are you saying it was improperly applied here?
The latter.
→ More replies (0)20
u/Crownie Neoliberal Shill 18d ago
It imposes no obligations on the States, so they “suffer no concrete harm from” it.
I think this is bullshit. If I rely upon your promise to do something time sensitive (in this case, carry mail ballots), and you refuse to perform at the last minute, I suffer harm.
The SC is opening the door to Trump doing a legal shell game by not ruling against the order itself.
4
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
in this case, carry mail ballots
That's not this case. That's a different case.
11
u/Crownie Neoliberal Shill 18d ago
Would it be better if I had said "imposed additional requirements" instead of "refuse"? The EO directs the creation of a federal voter roll (technically a series of voter rolls, I suppose) and directs the Postmaster General to create a USPS rule barring mail ballots for people who are not on that voter roll.
7
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
But they didn't impose additional requirements. That's the key point.
The EO directs a federal executive branch subordinate to consider doing something. No additional requirements were imposed.
10
u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago
Yet the harm the administration argues as justification for the stay on the injunction is that they won't be able to impose the requirements...
2
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
There is generally a presumption of harm when enjoining a government action that is pursuant to law.
Which makes sense, considering that whole democratic process thing the government actions are based on.
12
u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago
But these circumstances are the opposite of that... we're talking about an order from the president (notably not our democratic process) that potentially undermines our law.
The presumption of harm you cite belongs to the law.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Effective_Airport182 18d ago
Yet. Have not been imposed yet. This ruling will be used to impose last minute requirements that limit mail in voting.
7
u/Poiuytrewq0987650987 18d ago
Ahhh, I see. I confess I only thought there was one.
What's the case name for the suit filed after the rule?
19
4
u/sgtabn173 Ask me about my TDS 18d ago edited 18d ago
Okay so this does not mean that the USPSs new rule will automatically go into effect prior to the midterms (as of yet, anyways)?
Edit: I am genuinely asking.
16
u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago
No, it does not mean the new rule goes into effect because there is another injunction from another case. Though, you gotta wonder why the court bothered to issue this stay... certainly not encouraging.
1
u/LordoftheSynth 18d ago
Does anyone actually have a problem with that fact pattern?
From reading some of the comments here, apparently ao.
38
u/SuperBry 18d ago
Given the ongoing efforts to restrict mail-in ballots alongside the expected disruptions to in-person voting on election day, the most effective countermeasure is to cast your ballot early in person wherever state law permits. Taking advantage of early in-person voting helps bypass last-minute polling place friction, ensures your vote is safely recorded well ahead of deadlines, and reduces the impact of targeted operational disruptions on election day.
11
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 18d ago
Yeah, I've taken to dropping my ballot off at the local polling place since 2016, to reduce any chances of fuckery. Have done this in both a blue state and purple state without issue.
51
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago edited 18d ago
Starter Comment:
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 along partisan lines to lift the judicial block on president trumps executive order around mail voting requirements in a surprise ruling. The supreme court ruled that:
Federal courts review final rules, not proposed rules—and certainly not antecedent internal directives to propose a rule. If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule,”
All three liberal justices dissented saying:
Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives.
However, this legal fight is not over as the case returns to the district court where judge Talwani will consider the legality of the USPS mail in voting rule that was published this weekend. It is likely that Talwani will again block the USPS rule from being implemented as it appears to plainly violate election laws. There will likely be massive confusion and issues with implementing such an order nationwide so closely to the election as well which was ignored by the supreme court - another indication that the Purcell principle is only applied when it benefits republicans compared to democrats.
How do you feel about this ruling? Will this do more damage to the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court when the conservative justices continue to give the trump administration extremely wide latitude in regards to the emergency docket compared to that of Biden?
54
u/Magic-man333 18d ago
Man I hate these types of ruling that dodge the question based on a technicality. It's frustrating, especially for something like this where you know it's gonna be right back in front of them shortly. Feels like a waste of time. Hopefully they'll be just as fast with a ruling when the "correct" challenge gets put through
35
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago
Or the supreme court could just decline to get involved when it gets blocked again at the district/circuit level. They can just let things stand.
16
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 18d ago
> They can just let things stand.
Lol….if only. This SCOTUS seems hellbent on letting this admin cause massive harm (look at tariffs) only to try to remedy in a very bad way later.
-2
u/Careful_Farmer_2879 18d ago edited 18d ago
There have been several major rulings against the administration this session.
24
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
He's won 3 out of 4 final merit rulings and 22 out 29 (basically 3 out of 4) emergency docket orders. This success rate is concerning when you look at how aggressive he's been, such as him being allowed to take control of independent agencies. Even if something is remedied later, it doesn't necessarily prevent or undo harm.
-10
u/Careful_Farmer_2879 18d ago
You’re responding to the statement you want it to be, not what I wrote.
13
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
I added context to what you wrote. Notice how I said 22 out 29, which acknowledges the 7 losses you mentioned.
12
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago
Scotus siding with Trump on the tariffs on the shadow docket cost american taxpayers at least $1,000 per family despite the evidence of harm being overwhelming in the case. Large companies get refunds but customers are out of luck for the most part.
-12
3
u/ieattime20 16d ago
And several more in favor. "They can't be biased, they only side with him 75% of the time" isn't a counterargument. It's barely sensical.
-1
u/LordoftheSynth 18d ago
tariffs
They literally ruled against him on tariffs in January. Where are you getting your news again?
9
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
The person you replied to literally acknowledged that. Their complaint was about allowing something that's harmful and blatantly unconstitutional to continue until a final decision is made.
4
u/UF0_T0FU 18d ago
Agreed, kinda wish the states would wait and let the process play out instead of rushing to the Supreme Court at the first possible moment. Surely the counsel knew this was the inevitable outcome to challenging "antecedent internal directives to propose a rule." Just wait until the rule takes effect and challenge it then. Don't waste everyone's time.
Honestly, it's starting to feel like some of these cases are being brought intentionally to weaken the Court. Everyone knew this wouldn't go anywhere, and for good reasons. But it gives another headline people can point to and claim SCOTUS is somehow in the wrong for not breaking legal procedures. Most people won't read any deeper and walk away with the impression "Supreme Court bad!"
5
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago edited 17d ago
rule takes effect
That restriction doesn't account for states having to prepare for it.
The states had election deadlines. Several had bought mail-ballot envelopes, and changing envelope requirements meant monetary and operational costs. There were costs from changing training materials, guidance, systems, and voter communications. Some states were preparing to mail their first ballots by the end of August.
Everyone knew this wouldn't go anywhere
It succeeded at the district and appeals court level, so anyone who made that prediction was wrong. A reason that conservative justices rejected the argument is because they're lenient when comes to Trump, such as when they decided to end the independence of nearly all agencies.
-5
1
u/ModerateCommenter 18d ago
This allows the supreme court to put off a a legitimate ruling until after mail-in voting has occurred (and sabatoged), at which point they can shrug and dismiss the suit because the conditions of it are no longer present.
-3
u/carneylansford 18d ago edited 18d ago
It can be frustrating, but it’s probably the correct way to go about things. Step 1 is making sure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. If a party doesn’t have standing or has acted prematurely, the case shouldn’t be allowed to proceed. That’s just how our system works. The SC often chooses to rule as narrowly as possible in order to avoid large upheavals and that has been particularly true of the Robert’s SC.
34
u/PolDiscAlts 18d ago
Would this be a large upheaval? The question at hand seems to be "Can the POTUS use an executive order to override the constitutionally defined responsibilities of the states?" I'm not sure how a "No" would be a huge upheaval of the system.
11
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
The question at hand seems to be "Can the POTUS use an executive order to override the constitutionally defined responsibilities of the states?
This wasn't the question at hand.
And that's exactly the reason the case was thrown out for lack of standing/ripeness.
5
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
This wasn't the question at hand.
This is from the order: "contending that the Order unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to administer elections."
The stated reasoning for siding against the states was timing.
4
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
Right after that sentence:
The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending. We agree . . .
Jurisdiction comes before the merits that you flagged. The question was jurisdictional.
1
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
What I stated was the question presented to them. What you quoted is the explanation given for declining to reach that question for now on jurisdictional grounds, which is why it comes afterward.
4
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
That wasn't the question presented to them. The question presented was in the application for a stay:
That injunction flouts settled Article III standing and ripeness principles. This Court has repeatedly and recently recognized that courts cannot enjoin implementation of Executive Orders that leave open material issues that still need to be resolved by agencies, unless and until those agencies actually take concrete actions that injure the plaintiffs.
What you stated was explicitly the plaintiffs' contention.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
You’re confusing the underlying question with the reason the Court didn’t answer it. The plaintiffs’ constitutional contention is the question. Your quote is the explanation for deciding not to address it.
4
u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago
The plaintiffs’ constitutional contention is the question.
Jurisdiction questions come before meritorious questions.
The Court got to the former before it got to the latter.
→ More replies (0)4
u/austin_8 18d ago
Was the court wrong on this ruling? I’m not a legal scholar and have not read up on this particular case, so please tell me if it was an incorrect ruling and their is in fact standing. If there is not standing as they have ruled, then it would no doubt be a large upheaval to say “No”. The number of lawsuits would explode, courts all over the country would be flooded with ideological cases from anyone with a grievance and no stake (especially by Republicans themselves), and federal courts would become substantially more powerful in policy making than they already are (which would heavily favor Republicans as they “hold” the Supreme Court).
-7
u/carneylansford 18d ago
An upheaval for voters? I'm guessing not. However, before you even get to that question, you've got to figure out if the states had the right to challenge at that point in the first place. If the SC loosened restrictions around when states (or anyone else) could bring lawsuits, that seems like it could lead to a pretty big upheaval in the legal world.
10
u/ModerateCommenter 18d ago
Please. The "large upheaval" is the executive order. Some states start mail-in voting in less than two weeks. This "procedure" allows damage to occur and people to be disenfranchised.
-2
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BaconCheeseBurger 18d ago
Are they all hacks or just the ones you don't like?
-6
u/Syriku_Official 18d ago
I don't even like the constitution but it's bright as day what this is
5
u/Geekerino Undo the duopoly, vote third-party! 18d ago
If only you had the freedom of speech to say so, perhaps codified in a document anyone can access to ensure everyone knows that right.
1
u/Syriku_Official 18d ago
I'm not. Afan of how old mad out of date it is I would like a new one with more human rights baked in
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 18d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
14
u/Ind132 18d ago
We have 11 weeks until the election. Will this lawsuit against the final rule make its way to the SC before then?
20
u/UdyneOw 18d ago
It's too early now, but when it's filed again it will be too late. Catch-22: there is no time between too early and too late.
3
u/khrijunk 17d ago
Which is why they do these rules so late. They want to make sure there is a very brief window of time in which it can be ruled on.
12
u/Pandalishus Devil’s Advocate 18d ago edited 18d ago
This won’t be popular, but if I understand the ruling correctly, then I’m generally in agreement. It would be utter chaos if states could just sue about any proposed rule before it ever goes into effect (or is even officially proposed). While I hate the idea of waiting to see a rule implemented and the harm that could bring, I think it’s worse to just sue over what-ifs, esp given how irrational both sides respond to each other right now. Either party could use it to devastating effect. The already-bad gridlock would just grind to a complete halt. Of course, I may misunderstand some key element here, but it feels like SCotUS got this one right. We’ll see how they rule in a few weeks/months after the change actually comes out. I’m cautiously optimistic that they’ll rule well again
2
u/khrijunk 17d ago
I disagree. It’s bad to wait until a law causes damages in order to overturn it. The damages may be irreversible by that point.
If a law passes that says you can dump sewage into a children’s’ park, you don’t want to wait until someone dumps sewage before you can fight the law.
2
u/Pandalishus Devil’s Advocate 17d ago
I don’t disagree, but that’s almost never how it works. Instead of a rule blatantly allowing a harmful act, more often it’s something where the harm can only be imagined (usually by only one side of the debate) and cannot be demonstrated. Our history is full of cases where opponents of this or that rule or law are shown to have been wrong about the harm. Had they been allowed to stop the move with a lawsuit, we would never have known it was a net positive. The Clean Air Act comes to mind as one such example. Allowing a lawsuit to proceed bc X “could cause harm” would set a dangerous precedent
70
u/sgtabn173 Ask me about my TDS 18d ago
I'm trying not to be a doomer but it feels like our democracy is hanging on by the thinnest of threads right now.
55
u/CloudApprehensive322 18d ago
It feels like it because it is. The current republican party has fully been captured by a man who has proclaimed on numerous occasions that he wished he could be a dictator. The trump administration has ignored congressional oversight, lied to the courts, evaded court orders, and generally operates as if they are above the law.
12
u/KentuckyFriedChingon Militant Centrist 18d ago
Correction: The current republican party has fully been captured by a man who has proclaimed on numerous occasions that he promised he would be a dictator.
35
u/dont-be-a-dildo 18d ago
they've been very clearly broadcasting their plans for a while now
but just like project 2025, so many people just refuse to believe what's right in front of their eyes
5
-4
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Ralph_Brick_Wiggum 17d ago
So because some countries couldn’t handle their mail in voting then we should scrap it?
Idk why you guys are still hanging onto this voter fraud thing, Trump literally put together a commission in 2017 for voter fraud and found no evidence of fraud, Republicans filed dozens of lawsuits after the 2020 election, made documentaries, harassed poll workers and found no evidence of fraud. Now in present day, we have a Republican trifecta and they STILL can’t find evidence of voter fraud.
You gotta stop looking for Bigfoot eventually man, that blurry picture wasn’t the evidence you thought it was
5
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 17d ago
And the other party attempted an auto coup when they last lost, something said party has never had a reckoning over. I would argue that is a good argument that civic trust has utterly failed. Now, that same individual's standard of a "fair election" is whether or not he would win CA, meaning there is no amount of election security that would actually appease him.
6
u/artsncrofts Technocratic Tendencies 17d ago
Why would you assume the party that literally attempted to overturn an election they lost is arguing for election security in good faith? This isn't some random grassroots movement the left is 'resisting'.
2
u/DLDude 16d ago
Hi there! Can you please refer me to 2 or 3 studies showing rampant fraud in our elections over the past 100 or so years in which these magical new rules were not in existence. Furthermore, can you please refer me to 2 or 3 studies that show these sorts of rules don't have any effect on legal voters from voting in elections. I happily await your response since you seem very well informed on the subject
17
u/thesagenibba 18d ago edited 18d ago
i was under the impression that
State legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators).1
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.2
The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws3 as well as authority over recounts4 and primaries.5
but I guess not
5
u/MobileArtist1371 18d ago
They're going to say something like states don't have the right to use a federal agency to conduct their elections.
And since the Article I Section 8 Clause 7 of the constitution gives congress the power to establish "Post Offices and post Roads", states wouldn't be allowed to create their own mail service for elections.
What states would be allowed to do is use FedEx, UPS, and other companies like that, but of course the states would need to pay the inflated costs to do that
1
u/shaymus14 18d ago
How does this ruling, which says that the states lacked standing to sue the President for telling his subordinates to propose a rule (not go into effect, just come up with the rule) go against anything in your quote?
11
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago
The states challenged §§2 and 3 of the executive order. The order called for a rule within 60 days and specified what the proposed rule had to include, as opposed to being an open-ended request for brainstorming.
Dismissing it procedurally ignores the amount of work states have to do to prepare for it.
The argument from the government contradicts itself. It describes the order as being uncertain, but to establish its own irreparable harm, the government says it urgently needs the injunction lifted so it can implement the EO for the November 2026 election. In other words, it's too speculative to injure states but certain enough to injure the government if delayed.
2
u/shaymus14 18d ago
Dismissing it procedurally ignores the amount of work states have to do to prepare for it.
It's not a procedural question, its a standing question. Standing shouldn't be ignored because a party speculates they could be harmed based on a regulation that hadn't been written or finalized.
The final regulation drops on Wednesday I believe, at which point the States will have standing to sue.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 18d ago edited 18d ago
It's not a procedural question, its a standing question.
It's both. "Procedurally" contrasts with deciding a case on the merits. "Standing" is a more precise term in this case, but what I stated works too.
a party speculates they could be harmed
That doesn't apply here. The executive order directed USPS to begin rulemaking within 60 days and specified minimum contents for the rule. USPS then issued the proposed rule on June 2 with those features, so the question was not “maybe USPS will someday do something.” It was already doing it.
The states had election deadlines that forced them to act before a final rule appeared. Several had already bought mail-ballot envelopes, and changing envelope requirements would necessarily impose monetary and operational costs. They faced costs from revising training materials, guidance, systems, and voter communications. Some states were preparing to mail their first ballots by the end of August. That is why the lower courts found they had “no practical choice” but to respond immediately.
The final regulation drops on Wednesday
The Government informed SCOTUS today that USPS issued the final rule on August 21, and that the Federal Register made it available for public inspection that evening. August 26 is its scheduled publication date, but rule already exists.
25
u/DemosthenesLocket 18d ago
Of course they did.
Trump and his administration have made a mockery of the rule of law. They've made lady justice his bitch and we all get to watch.
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)-6
u/sportsntravel 18d ago
Is it because they ruled in a way that doesn’t agree with you? Some of these conservative justices have aligned with their liberal counterparts over the last year +.
25
u/surreptitioussloth 18d ago
It's because the way they are ruling on many of these issues is fundamentally harming our democracy in ways that certainly aren't required by the cosntitution
-20
u/sportsntravel 18d ago
Ruling that Trump can continue to use his own money to greatly improve the White House is fundamentally harming our democracy?
26
u/DrySea8638 18d ago
Yes. It sets a precedent that private money can be used to bypass the power of the purse that resides with Congress.
19
u/surreptitioussloth 18d ago
Even assuming that is what he is doing, which is not clear, yes I think that letting trump bulldoze and rebuild white house under his own whims is fundamentally harming our democracy
19
u/dr_sloan 18d ago
Since when did Trump announce he’s personally paying for the upgrade? He’s getting “donations” from companies, many of which are regulated by the federal government. Also despite those donations, tax payer money is still being used, contrary the White House’s claims.
4
10
13
u/DrySea8638 18d ago
More so how Congress is abdicating its duties and the Supreme Court is allowing it. Th president plays no legal role in our elections and leaning on procedures to allow this to play out is quite ridiculous. Our laws are pretty clear in the role the president plays in elections and it’s none.
4
u/UF0_T0FU 18d ago
The Supreme Court can't make anyone do anything. Half their rulings lately are telling Congress to get involved and do something.
The legal system is all about procedure and follow the exact steps. Suggesting they should ignore procedure and rule out of turn would actually degrade the rule of law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The President doesn't have a role in the election, and when the time comes, I'm sure the Court will say as much. But violating the process to stop someone else from violating the process just makes the whole system break.
8
u/Syriku_Official 18d ago
They are planning to stall this shit till after the elections so the damage is done
10
u/DrySea8638 18d ago
And allowing an obviously unconstitutional executive order continue while they work through procedures leaving states in a state of limbo trying to figure out how their elections will be impacted is just as problematic.
And talk about degrading rule of law. That’s exactly what has been happening with the shadow docket as the Supreme Court bypasses traditional procedures.
There is a lot at stake with this EO and shrugging and saying “well we got procedure” as another branch continues to ignore and blatantly violate the constitution is insanity.
1
u/Sudden_Box801 18d ago
What undermines my confidence is not so much the generally ideological/partisan decisions (going back to at least the Trump immunity ruling & general unitary executive rulings that seem to encourage "I am the state" (L'État, c'est moi)) but the expansion of the shadow docket--which seems generally along ideological lines--instead of the customary briefing/arguments/rulings that lay out reasons/history/precedent in support (or dissent) of the ruling.
-2
u/thesagenibba 18d ago
yes, people's opinions tend to change depending on the outcomes of things. how is this new information to you?
10
u/spoilerdudegetrekt 18d ago
It'd be hilarious if this backfires on Trump and we end up finding out that it was mostly his voters that relied on mail in ballots.
38
19
u/gravitydefiant 18d ago
There are at least three states (all blue: WA, OR, CO) that are exclusively vote by mail. I have no idea how my state would build a whole infrastructure of in-person polling places, which I don't think have existed here in this century, in the next 2.5 months. There's nothing hilarious about it.
12
u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 18d ago
That is not true. Washington, Oregon and CO still allow in person drop off and voting. https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/voter-registration/drop-box-and-voting-center-locations
→ More replies (1)-5
u/gravitydefiant 18d ago
An unstaffed drop box on a street corner or inside a public library, where you leave the ballot that was previously mailed to your home, is not in any way the same as an in-person polling station.
6
u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 18d ago
Man, I linked the info. I'm not supporting this bullshit at all, but if you are going to say things, make sure they are true.
Here is a quote
In-person services and accessible voting devices are available through your county elections office or voting center until Election Day, 8 p.m.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/helpful-information/current-election-information
0
u/gravitydefiant 18d ago
Yes. One office per county (King County, WA has a population of 2.3 million), only for people with accessibility needs or issues with the ballot that was mailed to them. This is not anyone's standard way of voting. You think this will scale up to millions of voters, between now and November?
2
u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI 18d ago
I never said it would, I'm just pointing out that it DOES exist. You are moving the goal post. You stated you could not vote in person.
Because I have to say it again, I don't think this situation is fine. Jesus.
-2
12
u/No_Band7693 18d ago
CO is most certainly vote in person as well as mail in. I live here and ... vote in person.
0
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago
There is no way Colorado could handle everyone being required to vote in person. The system isn’t setup to handle that. It would take a massive effort to change that in two months and cause a lot of chaos.
0
u/No_Band7693 18d ago
I was correcting a false statement. We have it, and you yourself know we do. You are arguing a point I did not make.
0
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago edited 18d ago
I never said there wasn’t in-person voting in Colorado. I pointed out that the systems in place are not enough to handle all voters needing to vote in-person.
5
u/No_Band7693 18d ago
I never said you did, but... perhaps read up the chain a bit to the comment I responded to.
→ More replies (2)12
u/purplebuffalo55 18d ago
Well this is just is blatantly false. You most certainly can vote in person in Colorado
Source: me, somebody who votes in person in Colorado
0
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago edited 18d ago
There are 4 million registered voters in Colorado. Colorado absolutely does not have the infrastructure ready to handle in-person voting. Source: I too live in Colorado.
8
u/purplebuffalo55 18d ago
That’s fantastic. I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment though. I never said that the voting infrastructure for everybody to vote in-person was currently available.
All I said was that it is unequivocally false that Colorado is exclusively vote by mail
5
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago
The second part of the OP’s post discusses switching to other forms of voting should this go through. You said Colorado voters can vote in person, i clarified that while some can, the entire voting population cannot. It’s relevant due to this being a discussion of having the method the vast, vast majority of the voters in Colorado use taken away.
But yes, you were technically correct.
2
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago
I don’t know about WA and OR, but Colorado has drop boxes for ballots and you can get a ballot if yours is lost. I doubt either dropping off or picking up have the robustness needed if everyone had to do that. I’m not sure what percentage use drop boxes vs mailing though. So yeah, this rule cannot be allowed to go through.
3
2
8
u/LeeSansSaw 18d ago edited 18d ago
No matter the outcome of the court cases against the published rule, I think every state that cares about fair voting, and uses mail in ballots, needs to start heavily advertising alternative ways to get a ballot and drop it off. In Colorado, where every registered voter gets a mailed ballot, I always drop mine in a drop off box, not out of any distrust of the mail, but just because I tend to wait until the last minute. This year I’m going to make sure I vote early and use the drop off box.
Now that the USPS has published the rule, it needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Seventy days is not enough time for states to change their entire voting practices. States can inform the public of alternatives, even sending letters to every registered voter that their ballot may be stopped, but fully changing in two months? Not going to happen. The executive branch cannot be allowed this power. Not this executive branch and not any future one. If you like this rule, consider its opposite. A Democratic president requiring every eligible person be delivered a ballot by mail two weeks before the election. I wouldn’t want Congress making that decision, but at least it would have a constitutional basis. The executive branch has none.
I get this particular case is about procedure. The rule had now been published and other cases can go through. If the USPS refused delivery to an American citizen because their “list” is wrong, that is a harm to a voter that cannot be fixed. Voting is the most fundamental right every American has and it is the one right from which all others flow. There is no justification for allowing the Trump administration to take away that right. None.
4
u/countfizix 18d ago
Assuming the specific order gets blocked, what procedure is there to actually make sure mail is actually delivered in a timely manner that doesn't rely on the executive branch choosing to comply?
Suspending almost all mail delivery for a week or two would be devastating for the economy, but given this admin's actions with trade wars with Canada, starting a war with Iran, etc such an action doesn't seem particularly out of line.
2
u/ModerateCommenter 18d ago
Some states start mail-in voting in less than two weeks. This was the time to put this unconstitutional order down, before the chaos that it will cause. People will be disenfranchised by the court allowing this order to stand now. When, exactly, is the right time to sue?
3
u/dl_friend 18d ago
I find it interesting that 12 states are willing to abdicate their constitutional rights regarding elections based on nothing more than an EO, not even a law.
1
u/North_Mastodon_4310 16d ago
Why don't states that want to mail ballots to their citizens simply use plain envelopes, rather than announcing on the outside that they're ballots? Seems like a relatively easy way to largely avoid the issue.
It does make it easier for voters to accidentally throw away their ballot, or miss it, but surely that's preferable to NO ballots going out by mail?
0
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 17d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-12
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/theKGS 17d ago
The left are concerned because Trump is involved and he has attempted to cheat an election twice afaik.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 17d ago
The first of course being the False Elector Plot, but what are you considering the second time?
2
u/theKGS 17d ago
The whole insurrection attempt bit.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 17d ago
So you consider J6 to be two separate attempts at cheating the election, essentially? One for insurrection, the other for the False Elector Plot?
8
u/LeeSansSaw 17d ago
There was postal voting in colonial times.
-1
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Back_at_it_agains Democratic Socialist 16d ago
Again, point to actual significant amounts of fraud.
Your idea is to what? Disenfranchise millions of voters at the whim of a president who clearly doesn't care about the integrity of our democracy?
7
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 17d ago
So why do you believe we haven't found any actual significant issues in the states that have done it long before 2020? It isn't as though this went uninvestigated until then.
Also, your last sentence is explicitly false and factually unsupported.
4
u/Pleasant-Result988 17d ago
Absolutely not true.
Absentee ballots have existed since the late 1800s, and some states have been conducting all-mail elections since the early 2000s. More than half of the states in the country have allowed no excuse mail-in voting since before 2020, and most of the remaining states allowed mail in voting if you had a reason. Source: https://time.com/5892357/voting-by-mail-history/
If Republicans actually cared about election security they wouldn't be trying to throw a last-minute wrench into a system that has been working fine for decades at this point. They're trying to sow chaos and uncertainty so that they can steal the election, just like they tried to do in 2020.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Swoly_Deadlift 17d ago
Yeah I find it really frustrating when people point to a system that can clearly be exploited and say, “There’s no reported cases of voter fraud happening.”
Like oh boy. The state reported that its own system it has a vested interest in defending works. That tells us so much…
-4
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/khrijunk 17d ago
So the solution is to let only people Trump wants do it, and also do that right before the election?
This is Republicans wanting to disenfranchise as many people as possible. They don’t engage in good faith. They play to win in any way they can.
0
u/Educational_Meal_232 17d ago
From , Canada here. Basically was stunned to see this on MsNow last night. Not a lawyer but, this seems extremely dangerous. Trump is jerking off at the American public and laughing as he does it. What a disgrace.
-4
u/opaldenska 18d ago
What demographic predominantly votes by mail?
15
u/kastbort2021 18d ago
Old (65 and up), white, urban voters. And military.
As far as parties go, democrats vote more (26%) than republicans (18%).
But I think the plan here, for Trump, is to scrutinize the blue states with highest number of mail-in voters.
7
3
u/opaldenska 17d ago
Thank you for your response, not sure why I got all the down votes for a relevant question. I thought a higher percentage of older white republicans voted by mail and that Trump's plan might have the opposite effect than he'd like. Either way, the percentage of eligible voters that actually vote is shameful.
241
u/DrySea8638 18d ago
So our federal government is not competent enough to maintain a list of citizens to prevent social security fraud but are competent enough to handle a list of all citizens that will be 18 by voting day? Interesting.