It would be easy to hail the U.S. Supreme Court justices as heroes for their ruling in Watson v. RNC last week, which preserves states’ right to count mailed ballots sent by Election Day, but received days later. The decision is undoubtedly a win for preserving access to U.S. elections. But lest we forget, just two months ago this same Supreme Court severely restricted the voting rights of minority Americans by gutting a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, setting off an undemocratic redistricting war mere months before a consequential midterm election cycle. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has been busy actively abusing his executive authority to wrest control of America’s electoral system from states, coming most recently in the form of abuses by his postmaster general, David Steiner. Steiner testified before Congress last week that the United States Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots in states that don’t hand over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Though two days later a judge ruled USPS could not do such a thing, the legal battle over U.S. elections is just getting started.
In June, USPS published a proposed rule that detailed how it would not deliver mail ballots in states that had not provided their voter rolls to the federal government, citing compliance with Executive Order 14399. Back in March, Trump signed an order that sought to establish a national voter database by forcing states to provide a list of all of their registered voters, in the pursuit of preventing “voter fraud.” It included a specific call to action for USPS to establish new standards for mail ballots and to refuse to transmit mail ballots from individuals who live in states that had not provided a list of their voters to the federal government. In the months after this order was signed, most states did not comply, and the Justice Department filed lawsuits to force their hands. That suit has been unsuccessful in court.
Nevertheless, Steiner directed USPS to comply with the president’s order and was called to Congress to testify about it last week. This is when Steiner confirmed to senators that USPS would not deliver mail ballots in states where no voter roll data had been submitted to the federal government, arguing that it’s all in an effort to “make sure the right ballots are going to the right people.”
At least five lawsuits were filed against Trump’s executive order, including by 23 states and Washington, D.C., who banded together to file suit. One day after Steiner’s testimony, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled on the states’ case, blocking the order from taking effect after finding it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. “The Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power,” Talwani wrote, also noting how it’s clear that Trump’s order is an attempt to threaten states with criminal prosecution if they don’t comply. This will inevitably chill local election officials from being able to fulfill their legal obligations to carry out U.S. elections.
Talwani also picked apart Steiner’s new rule for USPS, pointing out that there is no federal law enacted by Congress that gives USPS authority to control voting by mail. Any existing voting-related guidance that USPS does have is not binding, it’s merely recommended. Plus, the time frame for states to comply with Steiner’s new rule makes no allowance for Congress’ mandated procedure regarding USPS rulemaking.
“This is a major blow to Trump’s plot to rig the midterms,” Robert Reich, law professor at University of California, Berkeley, and former secretary of labor, commented on Bluesky. “And the cruel irony is that it will make it easier for Trump to keep voting by mail himself.” Ever since his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, Trump has incessantly attacked mail voting, which tends to favor Democrats, despite using it himself.
The Trump administration is likely to appeal Talwani’s order, and there are still plenty more lawsuits against the president’s executive order on mail voting that need to play out in the courts. Meanwhile, Trump is pushing his agenda through different means in Washington, holding up a housing affordability bill to force Republicans to first pass the SAVE Act. It’s a piece of legislation that’s been stalled in Congress since the beginning of this year because it hasn’t been able to garner enough votes, while Trump has been putting the pressure on Republicans. “It will guarantee the midterms,” Trump said back in March about the SAVE Act. “If you don’t get it, big trouble, in my opinion.” The bill would severely tighten voter registration standards by requiring proof of citizenship, but would exclude documents like marriage licenses or name-change records, limit voting by mail, and mandate states to purge their voter rolls more frequently and share their voter lists with Homeland Security. And it would take effect immediately upon Trump signing it into law.
This week, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson failed to get enough Republican support for the SAVE Act, with 13 Republicans joining Democrats against the bill. Now, lawmakers are headed home for a two-week recess.
It’s also worth noting that alongside Callais and Watson, the Supreme Court also decided on a major campaign finance case this week in NRSC v. FEC. In a 6–3 opinion, the conservative majority struck down limits to coordinated spending between candidates and political parties that’s expected to have an immediate impact on the midterms. The decision will now give candidates direct control over how much money is being spent on their race, which is viewed as a massive windfall for Republicans, who tend to attract more deep-pocketed donors. This decision could be a major blow for Democrats, as Federal Election Commission reports revealed how the Democratic National Committee was getting outraised by up to $18.5 million in February compared to the Republican National Committee, while it was also carrying over $17 million in debt.
While the Supreme Court has been busy chipping away at constitutional norms, states are still reeling in the aftereffects of Callais. The redistricting wars are running full steam ahead, with a new decision Monday from the Colorado Supreme Court eliminating Democrats’ chances of gaining more seats there. Democrats were attempting to put Colorado’s independent redistricting commission on hold by asking voters to approve new congressional maps only for the 2028 and 2030 election cycles. If successful, the ballot measures would have put Democrats in a position to win seven of the state’s eight congressional seats—Democrats currently hold four in Colorado.
A similar scenario played out in Virginia, where the state Supreme Court blocked a new congressional map drawn by Democrats that voters had approved via ballot measure from taking effect. In the end, the Cook Political Report predicts the most likely scenario is that Republicans net around five seats from redistricting efforts, but Democrats will still win control of the House, given the GOP only has a three-seat majority and the public opinion winds are in their favor. Still, overcoming the redistricting headwinds will be a struggle, no matter how unpopular Republicans are.
Considering all of these changes and challenges to U.S. elections, it’s safe to say President Trump and the current far-right Supreme Court have successfully upended decades of accepted electoral norms, cementing outright partisanship as the law of the land while stripping voters of the power to elect their ideal candidate. This is our new political reality, and it cannot simply be undone once Trump is no longer president. To get back to a place that the Constitution and America’s Founding Fathers envisioned will require an emboldened Congress to double down on a good-faith mission to save U.S. democracy—starting, perhaps, after they return from recess.
