Northeastern professor weighs in on mail-in ballots
Will the Supreme Court’s ruling help or hurt either political party?
The Supreme Court of the United States has handed the Trump administration a symbolic victory by allowing the government to go forward – at least for now – with its plans to implement restrictions on the use of mail-in-ballots.
In March, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver mail-in-ballots from state-by-state voter lists compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. The president argued, without providing evidence, that the current mail-in voting system is flawed and allows non-citizens to vote.
Critics say the federal government shouldn’t be compiling voter lists, overriding state jurisdictions, and that such lists could be inaccurate. Twenty-three U.S. states and the District of Columbia sued the administration over the executive order.
In its 6-3 ruling on Monday, the court left the door open for more legal challenges, since it cited that the states suing the government took legal action too soon given that the new rules of the executive order had not yet taken effect.
Nullam pulvinar aliquam arcu non porttitor. Mauris cursus, ante sed California’s state’s governor has already vowed to sue again.
Mail-in-ballots are popular among Americans with 1-in-3 using them in 2024, according to the non-partisan States United Democracy Center, a policy think tank that gathers data on election policies. More Democrats use the postal ballots than Republicans or unaffiliated voters, data from the organization shows.
Editor’s Picks
The dispute over mail-in ballots has erupted in the runup to the November 8 midterm Congressional elections for which some states are preparing to start mailing out ballots to voters as soon as next week.
Northeastern University Constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul spoke to Northeastern Global News on the ins and outs of the mail-in ballot fight.
What is the issue and why did the Supreme Court rule the way it did?
PAUL: What the Trump administration is doing is threatening to tell the post office not to deliver mail-in ballots in states that have refused to turn over their voter lists to the federal government.
The Supreme Court lifted an injunction from a lower court judge that blocked the administration from going forward, but the government hasn’t actually put its new rules in action.
The court has to make sure that something has really happened first, before you can bring a lawsuit…In other words, has the administration really decided to go forward or is it still thinking about it. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.
Could the planned vote-by-mail restrictions help one party over another?
PAUL: That’s a very interesting question. Historically, the way political scientists have viewed it, is that more Democrats than Republicans have used mail-in votes. Demographically low-income and lesser educated people use it, and they historically voted Democrat. That’s the way it’s been up through the 20th Century and really up until the ascendency of President Trump. However, since Trump has arrived on the scene that’s been radically changed. The Republicans are still acting as though we’re still in the old days. So, if this has the effect of suppressing the vote, it’s not at all clear if it’s going to help Republicans in the current climate.
What if this is still in the courts by November?
PAUL: It might be sowing chaos. Everyone might be asking, is my vote going to get delivered? Is it safe to vote by mail? What am I supposed to do? Some states are about to send out ballots. Does the post office have to then send them back to the election officials? It could create massive anger across the country. People would say, ‘What do you mean my ballot wasn’t delivered?’
What do you think will happen if the administration takes the next step and tries to implement the new vote-by-mail restrictions?
PAUL: Because there is no legal basis for what the president wants to do, it’s blatantly unlawful, so he will lose (in court). What the Supreme Court did was to give the administration sort of a symbolic victory, so they can walk away from it now and say, ‘See, we were right all along.’ But I would be shocked if ultimately they let this go forward.
