By Bill Sargent’s and Mark Mansius
Recently we wrote a column about the possibility that President Donald Trump might declare a National Emergency over Election Integrity. That still could happen although time is running out. Subsequent to our writing that column the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overruled an anti-election integrity stay imposed by Federal courts in Massachusetts.
These courts blocked a Presidential executive order in response to a lawsuit by twenty-three states and the District of Columbia that wanted to block the implementation of the President’s election-related actions. In a 6-3 decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the SCOTUS overruled the lower court decisions.
Background:
One of the major opportunities for election fraud comes from absentee ballots. In some states, like California, absentee ballots are mailed to every registered voter regardless of whether they want one. Additionally, no safeguards are in place ensuring those registered are actually U.S. citizens; nor are there any checks to verify that ballots-by-mail received back by election officials have been voted by the actual people to whom they were sent.
Following the 2020 election, a forensic lawyer contacted a statistically meaningful number of Republicans in swing states asking if they had actually voted or tried to vote. A significant number said they had attempted to vote but couldn’t because of claims they had already submitted an absentee ballot. The number of instances was so significant that they could have legally called for new elections in many of those states. For example, on the ground canvassing in Democrat-leaning sections of Arizona’s Maricopa County found that 13% of the mail-in-ballots were probably fraudulent. On a statistical basis, the number of fraudulently cast ballots could have likely changed the results of the Arizona elections.
In response to such troubling investigations, and known issues with mail-in-ballots, President Trump issued an executive order in March 2026 that directed:
- That in coordination with other executive branch agencies, the Department of Homeland Security create “State Citizenship Lists” cataloging residents in each state that are U.S. citizens, 18 years or older and provide the lists each state’s officials. However, under the President’s Executive Order the states weren’t required to use the lists in the conduct of their elections.
- The Attorney General “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of state and local officials or any others” who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.
- The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) initiate proposed rulemaking that:
– includes the ability to track outgoing absentee ballots;
– no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any state may ”choose” to notify the USPS that it intends to utilize its services to transmit ballots-by-mail and no fewer than 60 days prior to the election that the state shall provide a list of eligible voters it intends to send absentee ballots to through USPS.
– And that USPS shall not transmit any ballots-by-mail to any individuals who aren’t on the state’s DHS-developed “Citizenship List.”
The SCOTUS Ruling:
SCOTUS found that the executive order was limited to the President directing executive branch agencies to take actions, fully within his Article II powers in the U.S. Constitution. It further found that the argument by the states were based upon “conjectural or hypothetical” actions that might impact them, not actual steps taken that injured them. Consequently, SCOTUS overruled the lower courts’ stay of the President’s executive order while not ruling on the merits of the case and allowing the case to proceed in the lower courts.
Subsequently, in late August USPS issued a final rule that:
– Mandates any state intending to use USPS to deliver absentee ballots, provide USPS with a list of participating voters who will be recipients of same. [Note states are not required to use USPS services for mailing absentee ballots.]
– Prior to accepting outbound ballots for mailing, USPS shall determine whether the recipients match the state’s DHS-Absentee Participation List. Any mailings that don’t comply were to be returned to the sender for correction.
– These requirements apply only to outbound absentee ballots and not to those being returned by voters.
The USPS rule doesn’t address requirements for voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register. Nor does it deal with requirements for having a photo ID in order to vote.
Shortly after the final rule was issued a Federal District Court in Boston issued an emergency request by the states and the League of Women’s Voters (et. al.) blocking its implementation. The Trump Administration is asking SCOTUS to overturn the lower court’s action. However, the issue here is one of timing. If SCOTUS doesn’t take action supporting the Administration by mid-September it will be too late to have any impact on the 2026 midterm elections.
Some Final Questions:
Why are 23 blue states, the League of Women’s Voters, the ACLU and others feverishly working to stop the Administration’s efforts to protect the integrity of absentee voting? How will they benefit from doing so? Unless we want to allow the possibility of fraudulent voting, wouldn’t all of us want to safeguard the integrity of our elections? Apparently, the answer is “No!”
