This headline is misleading; the Court didn't "clear the way" for the vote-by-mail restrictions executive order, but rather dismissed one of two lower court injunctions currently blocking it, on relatively narrow procedural grounds. The court hasn't yet ruled directly on the legality of the EO's substance.
23
Replies
9
Boosts
@mattblaze I know you're liberal with the block button but, I dare a response:
If your plan was to #vote by mail, it's time to alter that plan, if you're in #Texas and under 65.
It's nearly impossible to successfully vote by mail in this state UNLESS you have the 65+ excuse. Ask me how I know.
Today's ruling didn't change that, but it's a good enough reason to STRONGLY prefer early voting or election day voting. Even if you're 66 years old. If you need a ride, let me know.
@todb I understand about Texas. As I said, today's ruling shouldn't alter anyone's plan for how they should vote, but there may be other considerations in particular states.
@mattblaze @AssociatedPress I read the opinion—and the two dissents are blistering. I urge everyone to read it themselves: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf
@SteveBellovin @AssociatedPress They are indeed. But even setting that aside, the ruling is procedural and narrow, and doesn't actually do what the headline claims.
@mattblaze @AssociatedPress The dissents, especially Jackson's, make it absolutely clear what's going on. And it is rather odd that this opinion, issued today, focuses on the assertion that there was no final plan, when the NY Times reported on Friday (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/us/politics/postal-service-rule-restrict-mail-ballots.html?unlocked_article_code=1.71A.nd40.MCdeuiDdAwbt&smid=nytcore-ios-share) that a final plan had just been issued.
@SteveBellovin In fairness, I think the issue is that the briefs don't respond to the the final plan (which hadn't been issued when they were filed). I suspect the case would now be ripe for re-filing, under the majority's logic.
But I agree strongly with the overall conclusion. It's ABSURD that this has even gone this far, and suggests that we are hanging by a thread.
@mattblaze thanks for clarifying this.
I trust your opinion far above news media.
As a practical matter, it's unlikely that the vote-by-mail restrictions will have significant practical effect on the 2026 midterms, even the Court ultimately allows them (which it is not at all clear they will). It's just too close to the election at this point.
@mattblaze They've succeeded in generating a little extra chaos and uncertainty, which is the real point. The fact that SCOTUS failed to put the kibosh on this immediately is a Trump victory by itself.
Same with: they don't need to actually deploy ICE to polling places, they just need people to think it might happen, in order to change voting behavior.
You don't need me to tell you this but it needs to be said: Elections are won or lost in the margins.
I mean…maybe. But all it takes is a small amount of fuckery in a few state capitals or simply something that brings the whole election’s legitimacy into doubt.
I am not sure my vote for James Talarico will be accurately counted. I am worried the election will be “canceled” by Trump, which of course doesn’t mean anything but then Republican majority states pass some emergency legislation that appoints GOP senators directly and fucks with the House and we get a constitutional crisis.
@rk Stop it. Your're spreading speculative misinformation that will discourage people from voting.
The actual facts and details matter a lot here.
If you change your voting plans based on any of this - you're doing exactly what the Trump administration wants you to do.
If you worry your vote doesn't count or matter - that's exactly the kind of self-imposed withdrawal they'd love to see you do.
Vote!!!!
Hence my comment that I don’t wanna be a pessimist doomer. I still hope.
My concern is that this ruling will get translated as "Trump/SCOTUS has outlawed vote-by-mail", which is simply not true.
No one should alter their voting plans for 2026 based on today's ruling.
@mattblaze ya. Doesnt change anything. Dont listen to those talking dumb ass.
@mattblaze If the USPS refuses to deliver ballots, whether they legally can or not, it'll disrupt mail voting. I agree with you about not needing to do anything now, but I'd keep an eye on the situation as the election nears.
Having them deliver the blank ballots but then accept and hold the returned ballots would be the hardest to deal with.
@tknarr Literally no one said not to pay attention. And no one said what the administration is trying to do wouldn’t be disruptive (which is why there are lawsuits about it). But these ignorant pronouncements of doom serve no one but those trying to discourage voting and sow confusion.
Remember, the administration has attempted a LOT of outrageous things. Thus far the courts, including the Supreme Court, have allowed some of them but rejected others. No one can predict with certainty how things will ultimately play out with the vote-by-mail restrictions, and it is by no means over or a foregone conclusion.
One thing that's certain: The syllabus for my elections course this semester is already a work of fiction, and will no doubt have little relationship to what we cover each week.
@mattblaze
Utah has refused to turn over voter information. Will we have to find another way to distribute ballots?
@mattblaze Yeah, but corporately captured news media, so they push their agenda, not journalism.
