President Trump has launched efforts to restrict mail-in voting, describing the practice as a “hoax” despite approximately 29% of American voters using it in 2024. The administration issued an executive order in March requiring the US Postal Service to maintain a list of eligible voters and block mailed ballots to anyone not on that list, effectively transferring election administration authority from state officials to federal postal authorities. Trump has also sought to codify these changes through the Save America Act in Congress.
Trump and his supporters have claimed that mail-in voting poses significant fraud risks, pointing to delayed ballot counting procedures and noting that Democratic margins tend to widen as mailed ballots are counted. However, extensive research has found little evidence supporting widespread fraud concerns. A UCLA Voting Rights Project analysis identified only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation out of a billion votes cast, while a Brookings Institution study determined that mail voting fraud averaged only 0.000043% across general elections from 2016 through 2022. Experts note that executing mail-in fraud at scale would require accessing dozens or hundreds of ballots while ensuring those voters do not appear in person on election day.
The Trump administration’s actions have prompted immediate legal challenges. Federal courts issued an injunction blocking the postal rule from taking effect, and a three-judge panel in the first circuit upheld a preliminary injunction on Thursday against Trump’s order. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction, arguing that postal service rules regulate mail rather than voting. The Supreme Court previously blocked the initial injunction last month, describing the case as “not yet ripe” for legal review, though that assessment may have changed as the midterm elections approach.
The litigation faces the “Purcell principle,” a legal doctrine that generally prevents courts from allowing election rules to change close to an election due to concerns that local election officials would struggle to adapt. The case remains unresolved as November’s midterm elections draw near.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI