Solicitor General John Sauer asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to expedite review of a court order blocking President Donald Trump’s mail-in ballot policy.
In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, a Barack Obama appointee, blocked Trump’s mail ballot order for 23 states challenging the policy. The president’s order prevents the U.S. Postal Service from mailing ballots to residents not listed as eligible voters, instructing the USPS to send lists of eligible voters to states ahead of the November elections.
Sauer, in his Wednesday filing, urged the court to act quickly ahead of the elections. “Otherwise, the district court’s erroneous orders will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement Section 3 of the Executive Order for the federal elections in November, thereby causing irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity,” the filing stated.
Trump signed the executive order in March, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”
The order called for the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. For mail-in ballots, the order directed the U.S. Postal Service to send a list of eligible voters to states and prohibited the Postal Service from mailing ballots to residents not on the lists. Trump directed the attorney general to investigate and potentially prosecute state and local officials who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote.
In a lawsuit led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block Trump’s order. Talwani in June opted not to rule on the case, but rather determined that the plaintiff states’ claims regarding the upcoming midterm elections were ready for review and that Trump’s executive order “created a ‘direct and immediate dilemma’” for them.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s request to pause the matter. Then the administration, on July 27, asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
On Aug. 3, the states filed a brief with the high court saying Talwani’s ruling means the federal government would rush a voter system ahead of the November elections to the detriment of states.
“It would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities,” the states said in their brief.
“Under this new program, USPS, a budget-strapped agency that has struggled to administer a variety of programs in recent years, would require state governments to assemble (and then upload to an untested online USPS ‘portal’) lists of voters registered to cast mail ballots,” the states said. “States would also be forced to redesign their ballot mail to adopt barcodes that USPS would scan to make voter-eligibility determinations. And USPS would refuse to deliver ballots for voters not identified in its database.”
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]