The Trump administration wasn’t able to implement restrictions on mail ballots for the midterms, and members of postal workers unions wanted the U.S. Postal Service’s board to know they will fight to stop it for the 2028 election, too.
Ahead of a USPS board of governors meeting on Tuesday, members of the American Postal Workers Union protested the mail ballot rule outside of Postal Service headquarters.
They called on the postal board to “pull the rule,” decried the interference in the agency’s nonpartisan role in election mail delivery and lamented the lack of preparation to implement the initiative before the Supreme Court blocked it.
The Supreme Court in September ruled that the changes would be implemented too close to the November elections. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, wrote that “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority.”
Trending
The Postal Service has not rescinded the rule and it could seek to once again implement it in 2028.
“Because of pending litigation, we have no response to offer on any questions related to the Executive Order or the federal ballot mail rule,” said Cathy Purcell, a USPS spokesperson.
The fight to permanently put a stop to that rule is not over for advocates, voting rights groups and union members. And postal workers said they want the independent agency to know that they are not giving up.
“We are asking for a permanent solution,” APWU President Jonathan Smith said. “The board of governors has the authority, and not only the authority, but the responsibility to act. We’re here to make sure that that message is loud and clear, that they are independent from the executive branch, and that we’re not beholden to an executive order.”
Smith added that the job of postal workers is to deliver the mail, not decide who does or does not get to vote.
During the meeting, agency leadership heralded its successful election mail delivery during the midterms while only alluding to the ballot rule that threatened to upend its operations.
“After, as my kids might say, a complicated election cycle in which the Postal Service took an uncomfortable starring role, we’re proud that the U.S. mail proved, again, up to the task of handling one of the most sacred responsibilities in a democracy,” said Daniel Tangherlini, a postal board member. “Even under intense scrutiny, the USPS team did what they do every day: showed up and got the job done.”
Tangherlini, who was voted as the board’s next chairman during Tuesday’s meeting, said he hoped to be as helpful as his predecessor was during the election “but preferably in other ways.”
The rule, based on a March executive order, would require states to only send mail-in ballots to federally approved voters. Postal employees would be responsible for screening all ballots to ensure compliance with state lists and reject any batches of election mail that included at least one error.
Postal officials previously told The Washington Sun the rule would lead to widespread mistakes and disenfranchisement, a concern later echoed by a postal whistleblower complaint made public by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut).
The rule also included several other policies such as envelope design approval, a never-before-seen ballot portal and a barcode system that some state election officials said would have turned the midterms on its head.
Much of the battle over this rule played out in the courts this year. But with a Democratic majority soon taking over both chambers of Congress, lawmakers could seek to weigh in on the issue, too.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Virginia), a member of the House Oversight Committee, told The Sun that unless the board of governors “does the right thing” and permanently blocks the rule, the issue will need to be dealt with by the committee.
“What this rule would do is turn the Postal Service into an election administrator,” Walkinshaw told The Sun. “Practically, I don’t believe that even with more time to plan and implement a system that they can execute it without creating mass confusion.”
Authors
