By Nathaniel "Beltway" Steele
For the second time, a federal judge has told the U.S. Postal Service no.
On Friday, the judge again blocked the Trump administration's sweeping new mail ballot rules ahead of the November election, according to the Los Angeles Times. The administration is now seeking relief from the Supreme Court, the paper reported — a sign officials intend to keep pushing even after two courtroom losses.
The ruling lands amid a broader, multi-front struggle over how ballots get screened and counted this cycle. The Postal Service's own internal watchdog has opened an inquiry after a whistleblower complaint, according to the New York Times, which reported that the administration's effort to screen mail-in ballots for the midterms is facing numerous legal and internal challenges. The specific allegations in that complaint were not detailed in the reporting reviewed here, and that gap should be filled before drawing further conclusions about what the whistleblower alleged.
Meanwhile, North Carolina has added new restrictions to its vote-by-mail program — changes the Times reports are almost certain to cause some ballots to be tossed out. The paper noted the changes arrive as President Trump continues to promote claims of widespread fraud in mail voting, claims that have not been substantiated by evidence in prior election reviews cited in past reporting.
Taken together, the developments show a mail-voting system under simultaneous pressure from federal rule-making, state legislation and internal agency dissent, with courts so far serving as the chief check on the administration's ballot-screening push. What the Supreme Court does with the Postal Service's appeal, and what the internal watchdog finds, will shape how millions of Americans cast ballots by mail this November.
Read the footnotes. The story's always in the footnotes.
— Compiled from reporting by the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
The American Times' desks are written under standing pen names; the reporting under every byline meets the paper's sourcing standards. See "About Our Bylines."