Top election officials from seven Republican-led states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Trump administration’s new mail-ballot requirements from taking effect during the 2026 midterm elections, warning that implementing the changes this late could create confusion and disrupt voting.
The officials stressed that they are not taking a position on whether the U.S. Postal Service rule is legal or whether its election-integrity goals are sound.
Advertisement
Instead, they argue that election administrators simply do not have enough time to comply before the Nov. 3 election.
The filing was joined by Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson and the secretaries of state of Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota.
“In many respects, the election is already underway,” the election officials told the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
They warned that attempting to impose major new procedures now would “almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials.”
President Donald Trump directed the Postal Service to adopt the requirements through an executive order signed in March.
Under the final USPS rule, mail ballots used in federal elections would have to meet new envelope-design standards, carry unique Intelligent Mail barcodes and be associated with voter information submitted through a federal ballot portal.
Election offices would also be required to present outgoing ballot mailings to postal facilities for verification before they could be accepted.
Mailings that fail to comply could be rejected by the Postal Service.
The administration has described the changes as modest safeguards intended to improve election security and standardize the handling of federal election mail.
But election officials say the timing creates serious practical problems.
Many jurisdictions have already purchased and printed their ballot envelopes, meaning they could have to redesign and reorder them.
Advertisement
The officials also said the federal ballot portal had not undergone sufficient end-to-end testing and that election workers would need to create new procedures and data systems while simultaneously completing their normal election preparations.
North Carolina began mailing absentee ballots Sept. 4, and federal law requires every state and the District of Columbia to send ballots to military and overseas voters by Sept. 19.
The officials invoked the Supreme Court’s longstanding reluctance to allow major election-rule changes close to Election Day, often referred to as the *Purcell* principle after a 2006 Supreme Court case.
“Late changes breed confusion, that confusion keeps eligible voters from voting, and a chaotic election erodes confidence in the result,” they wrote.
Advertisement
They asked the justices to allow the November election to proceed under the rules that were already in place when election preparations began.
The Postal Service rule is currently blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts.
Talwani concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed in arguing that the executive branch had exceeded its authority and warned that enforcing the rule shortly before the election could disenfranchise voters.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused Thursday to lift that injunction.
The appeals court said the Constitution gives states and Congress primary authority over election rules and agreed that implementing the USPS requirements now could cause significant disruption.
Advertisement
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and allow the rule to take effect while the broader litigation continues.
Solicitor General John Sauer has argued that the requirements are reasonable postal regulations rather than an attempt by the executive branch to take control of state election administration.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that emergency request. Its docket showed the administration filed its reply Thursday after states, voting-rights organizations and election officials submitted responses opposing immediate implementation.
The Republican officials’ involvement adds an unusual element to the dispute because their objection does not center on the administration’s policy goals.
Their argument is much narrower: whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides about the legality of the rule, they say imposing it weeks before a national election carries too great a risk of mistakes and disruption.
For now, the lower-court injunction remains in place, meaning states can continue preparing mail ballots under their existing procedures unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
