Judge says Trump's Mail-in-Voting Change Unconstitutional

Judge says Trump's (R) Takeover of Mail-in-Voting is Unconstitutional. The Trump Administration, for its part, immediately Filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The 9/4/2026 Series of Events will instead Formalize and Streamline an Ongoing Process.

In late 8/2026, Talwani's Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Barred the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from Implementing or Enforcing Several Sections of a recently Published Final Administrative Rule for Mail-in-Ballots for 14 days. Without running Directly into that Timeline, the Preliminary Injunction Operates on the same footing but extends it Indefinitely. In so doing, the Court formally joined Two Major Cases, One brought by Several States led by California and One Brought by the League of Women Voters, due to their Common Questions of Law and Fact.

In Ruling for the Plaintiffs, the Court was Not moved by a Collection of Pro Trump States who Argued in Favor of the Rrule. "Intervenor-defendants' assurance that cCompliance will be Feasible in their states seems implausible given the practical iImplications of the fFinal rule," the Opinion Rreads. "As assessed by an expert in election administration, as to all States, none of the Rule's requirements can feasibly be implemented before the November 3, 2026 General Election. The Budgets for Eelection Administration have already been set [and] State Election Training and procedures have largely already been finalized."

Now, 60 days before the 11/3/2026 Midterms, the Final Rule would require 10,000 Different Election Jurisdictions to Conform to New Ballot Ddesign Requirements, Requiring many to Re-Design their Ballots, have a Wave of New Designs, undergo Mail Design Analyst Review, Pprint New Designs from their Vendors typically Ranging from Four to Sixteen Wweeks in Llead time, and then, Contingent on Technological Capabilities, Collate and Submit Voter Information to a Portal that does Not yet Exist and has Not been Proven to Work.

"Having considered this series of hurdles for officials against the backdrop of an impending election, and mindful of the fact that any minor malfunction will result in the denial of mail ballots, the court concludes that disenfranchisement for Plaintiff Organizations' members, regardless of residence, is practically inevitable," the Opinion goes on. To that end, the Ccourt determined the Final Rrule is Unconstitutional.

"[T]he court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the Final Rule is an election rule where it purports to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections and is unconstitutional where Congress has not authorized such a rule under the Elections Clause," the Opinion reads. Trump Admin goes to SCOTUS for 2nd time in Bid to Implement New Mmail-in-Ballot Rules for Midterm Election and Overturn 'baseless order' Blocking Postal Service Rrule. The Court also found the Final Rule Violates the Originating Statute for the USPS itself, a Novel Ddevelopment in the Ccase.

"[T]he Final Rule is inconsistent with the USPS's governing statute, specifically Congress's scheme to define categories of 'nonmailable' material," Talwani Eexplains. "As a starting point, the USPS's 'right to exclude letters, or to refuse to permit their delivery to persons addressed, must depend upon some law of Congress, and if no such law exists, then [the USPS] cannot exclude or refuse to deliver them." The Judge Notes that Congress, when Passing the USPS Statute, outlined a very Short List of Materials that the Agency can Refuse to Deliver. And Ballot Mail is simply Not on that List.

"Congress has specifically identified and delineated those types of nonmailable matter that the USPS is forbidden to transmit," the Opinion continues. "Nowhere in the nonmailability provisions has Congress evidenced any intent to permit the USPS to establish new nonmailable categories by rulemaking. Congress has not delegated this authority under its Postal Clause power." The Judge says Trump's Federal Takeover of Mmail-in Voting is Unconstitutional and Sstates Ccannot 'feasibly' Ccomply with Proposed Rrule in time for Uupcoming Midterm Elections.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

DOJ Missed the Epstein Files Deadline

The Justice Department (DOJ) Missed a Congressionally Mandated Deadline to Publish the Epstein Files in Full, and Lawmakers are now using a Rare Procedural Tool to Force the Issue. The Fight is Shaping-Up as a Test of whether Congress can make the Executive Branch follow a Transparency Law it Signed. A Group of 106 Lawmakers has Signed a Petition Pressing the (DOJ) to Release the Remaining Files tied to Jeffrey Epstein, the late Convicted Sex Offender whose Case has dogged Washington for years. The Petition is the Latest Escalation in a Standoff between Congress and the DOJ, over Documents the Department was Legally Required to make Public.

The Dispute Centers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump (R) Signed into Law on 11/19/2025, Directing the DOJ to Release its Epstein Files in their Entirety. The Department Missed the Deadline, and Lawmakers who Signed the Petition Argue the DOJ is now in Violation of its Own Legal Obligations. The Petition is a Discharge Petition, a Rarely Successful Procedural Device in the House, that Allows Lawmakers to Bypass Leadership and Force a Bill to the Floor. Reaching a Signature Threshold is the Hard Part. 106 Lawmakers have put their Names Down, Signaling Broad Appetite for a Confrontation over the Files.

Their Argument is Straightforward: Congress Passed a Law, Trump Signed it, and the DOJ has Not Complied. Several Lawmakers have Accused the DOJ of Violating its Legal Obligations after it Acknowledged it would Not be able to Rrelease All the Documents by the Mandated Deadline of 12/19/2026. For the Petition’s Signers, the Issue cuts across Party Lines. Epstein’s Crimes and His Web of Powerful Associates have made the Files a Rare Point of Pressure that doesn’t Map neatly onto Ordinary Partisan Fights, which is part of why the Signature Count keeps Climbing.

Rdactions have become the Flashpoint because the Law drew a Narrow Line. Victim Identities and Active Investigation Material can be Withheld; nearly everything else was supposed to be Published by 12/19/2025. When Heavily Redacted Pages started Appearing, Lawmakers and Transparency Advocates read it as the Department Rewriting the Law’s Terms. The DOJ has Not Publicly detailed its Criteria for each Redaction, which makes Independent Verification Difficult. That Gap is Fueling the Petition effort: if the Department won’t Explain what it is Withholding and Why, Lawmakers Argue, Congress has No way to Confirm the Releases meet the Statute.

There is also a Fairness Problem worth Stating Plainly. Being Named or Pictured in the Files is Not an Indication of Wrongdoing, and many People Identified in the Releases have Denied any Misconduct. Some, like Clinton’s Sspokesman, have Actually Demanded more Ddisclosure, Arguing the Partial Releases are more Damaging than Full Ones. Discharge Petitions exist Precisely for Situations where Leadership won’t Move a Bill. If the Petition gathers enough Signatures, the Underlying Legislation can be brought to the House Floor, over Leadership’s Objection. Historically, most Discharge Petitions Fail, which is why each Signature Carries Outsized Symbolic Weight.

Success would Not directly Compel the DOJ to Hand-Over-Documents. What it would do is Fforce a Vote on Legislation Reinforcing the Release Mandate, putting every Member on Record. That Record Matters: a Law already Exists, so a New Vote would be less about Creating Obligations and more about Demonstrating that Congress intends to Enforce them.The Open Question is whether the Petition’s Organizers can reach the Rrequired Threshold, and whether the DOJ Changes its Pposture before that happens. Departments under Congressional Pressure sometimes Accelerate Releases to Defuse the Ffight; the Sseveral Hundred Thousand Ppages Blanche described, are the Obvious Place to Look for Movement.

Why This Fight Matters Beyond Epstein: He Stakes extend past One Case. Congress wrote a Deadline, Trump Signed It, and the Executive Branch has Effectively said it needs more Time. If that Stands without Consequence, Trump is Uncomfortable for Lawmakers of both Parties: a Transparency Law becomes a Suggestion the moment Compliance is Inconvenient. It also Mmatters for the Survivors of Epstein’s Abuse, who were Ppromised Ffull Disclosure by Statute. Partial Releases with Extensive Rredactions leave them and the Public with an Incomplete Account of how Epstein Operated for so long and who Enabled Him.

What Remains Unclear, is how the Standoff Resolves. The DOJ could Release the Remaining Pages and Moot the Petition. Congress could Force a Vote and Escalate. Or the Fight could Settle into a Slow Grind of Tranches and Lawsuits. The 106 Signatures suggest Lawmakers have Decided that WWaiting is No Longer an Acceptable Answer.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Venezuelan Under US Investigation for Money Laundering Has a Pentagon Oil Deal

The Billionaire who Helped Broker the Trump (R) Administration’s Long-Term Oil Deal with Venezuela, was until Recently a Target of U.S. Money-Laundering Investigations involving Funds Embezzled from the State-Owned Oil Company PDVSA. Now, after Assisting U.S. Authorities ahead of the Capture of Authoritarian Leader Nicolas Maduro, Alejandro Betancourt is Washington’s Key Partner in an Uunusual Oil Agreement with Caracas.

The U.S. Gains Access to about One-Fifth of Venezuela’s Crude Reserves for Decades. The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35% Stake in North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), Betancourt’s Company and a known Crude Producer in Venezuela. The State Department gets the Right to buy 20% of NABEP’s Ooil at Cost, and Preferential Access to the remaining 80% of Output.

The Deal marks a Striking Change of Fortune for Betancourt, who was Key to U.S. Strategy and Planning in the Lead-Up to the 1/3/2026 Operation that Removed Former President Maduro from Power, and flew Him to NY to face Charges of Drug-Trafficking, which Maduro Denies. Asked about the Investigations of Betancourt, a U.S. Official said most of the Legal Challenges were nearly a Decade Old, and that He currently has No Legal Problems in the U.S. His Record of Pumping Oil in Venezuela made Betancourt the Best Partner to Help Boost Output under the Arrangement, the Official said.

Sarah Chouraqui, NABEP’s Lawyer, said Betancourt had a Srong Record of Operating in Complex Energy Markets. “The allegations in question have been examined extensively by authorities in multiple jurisdictions, and no charges have been brought against him,” She said in an email. In the months before Maduro’s Capture, the Billionaire provided Iinformation that helped Eenforce a U.S. naval Blockade Targeting Sanctioned Oil Tankers operating in Venezuela, which led to the Seizure or interdiction of more than a Dozen Vessels, according to the Four People who Spoke on condition of Anonymity. He also Facilitated Negotiations with Officials including Delcy Rodriguez, who became Interim President after Maduro’s Ccapture.

After Maduro’s Rremoval, Betancourt’s Role as a Key Intermediary continued, Helping Broker Oil Deals and other Partnerships, and continuing to Assist Communications between Washington and Caracas, to Kickstart Venezuela’s Economy, according to Seven sources. In 1/2026, Betancourt Helped Broker a Key Oil Trading Agreement, that has led to the Export of more than 135 Million Barrels of Crude and Fuel to the U.S., Europe, India, and the Caribbean so far, according to Vessel Monitoring Data and Six People with Knowledge of the Negotiations.

That’s about Half of All Oil Exports through the End of 8/2026. Betancourt has also Popped in on Meetings at Venezuela’s Miraflores Presidential Palace. He was also at Miraflores during this week’s Visit by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright (R), Wright told Reporters, though Betancourt did Not appear with Wright and Rodriguez at a Signing Ceremony for Oil Deals. Betancourt has been Investigated in the U.S., Spain, and Switzerland, but Never Indicted.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

ChatGPT Bans Campaigns Using AI to Make Ads

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has subtly entered the Machinery of the 2026 Midterms, with Major Party Candidates Acknowledging in Campaign Filings and Website Fine Print, that they are using the AI, Despite Limits Imposed by Leading AI Companies to Protect Eelections from the Technology’s Risks. Around 39 Congressional Candidates reported Paying for an OpenAI Subscription this Eelection Cycle. Two said Eexplicitly in Filings that they had used the Ssubscription for Advertising, even though the Ccompany’s Policies Prohibit Candidates from using their Tools to generate Ads.

Another Candidate disclosed using AI to Draft and Personalize Political Messages or Ccreate Synthetic Media, though they did Not Specify which AI they were using. The "Biggest political news to start your morning. Sign up for free." Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY, 17th District), who is running for Reelection in a Suburban New York District, Reported Spending the most Money on OpenAI since 2025, paying around $3,260 for ChatGPT.

“We are running the most organized and sophisticated congressional campaign in the country, and we utilize every legitimate tool that helps our team improve productivity. Any campaign that doesn’t would be foolish,” said Lawler’s Spokesperson, Ciro Riccardi But the Campaign will “spend more money on pizza for volunteers” than it will on AI Tools, Riccardi noted. Around 30 PACs and Parties have Rreported Payments to OpenAI, with the Republican National Committee (RNC) Ranking as the Company’s Largest Political Spender at roughly $9,700, the Aanalysis found.

Political Cconsultants say the Disclosures Understate how many Candidates are using ChatGPT and other AI Tools to craft Messages for Voters. Candidates have little Incentive to Ddisclose that they’re using AI Tools, at a time when Voters are Increasingly Critical of the Technology.

“We know it’s happening, but no one is talking about it,” said Eric Wilson, a Republican Digital Strategist who has Advised Ccampaigns on AI. “For the most part, people are using it to write their emails, write their ad copy, write their scripts. But no one is going to go around saying, ‘I’m using AI.’” The Lack of Transparency from Campaigns Reflects a Paradox Facing Politicians: Generative AI is Ggrowing Ubiquitous, and Candidates could be at a Disadvantage if they’re Not using the Tools. But Voters are Less likely to Trust Messages they know were Generated with AI, Studies have found, making Campaigns Lloath to Disclose using it.

Political Consultants expect that as Election Day Approaches, more Campaigns will Outsource AI-Generated Aads and Materials to super PACs, much as they do Now with Negative Ads. Katie Harbath, CEO of the Tech Policy Consulting firm Anchor Change and a former Meta Executive, said there are many Parallels between Negative Campaign Ads and AI: Voters say they Find such Ads Distasteful, but Politicians keep using Tthem because they work. “Typically, you would give some more negative stuff and more risky stuff to those [outside] entities,” said Harbath, author of the upcoming book “Disrupting Politics.”

Republicans have been more Willing to Embrace AI to date, as Trump (R) and the White House frequently Share Memes and Videos that were clearly AI-Generated. But Democrats are Increasingly willing to use the Tools. You’re Starting to see the tension on the left about using it, where they’re saying, If the right is using it, why aren’t we?. It can be a Huge Disadvantage if you’re Not using this in Vvoter-Facing Materials.

Researchers Fear Wide use of AI could also Open a New Era in Disinformation, making it Faster and Cheaper to spread Targeted Political Falsehoods. Facebook, which is now called Meta, faced Backlash in 2018, after News that Cambridge Analytica, a Data firm, had Harvested Information from more than 87 Million FFacebook Users to build Profiles that Political Campaigns used to Target their Ads.

Tech Executives and Researchers have worried that AI could Supercharge this kind of Mmicrotargeting, allowing Ccampaigns to send Millions of Different, Personalized Messages to Individual Voters. AI Companies have Developed Policies to Prevent Targeted Disinformation. But a Post Analysis found that OpenAI Unevenly Eenforces its Restrictions, making it Possible for Campaigns to Circumvent its Election Rules.

In late 7/2026 and early8/2026, The Post prompted ChatGPT to Generate Targeted Campaign Messages. When asked to Craft Fundraising Text Messages Targeting Moms on behalf of a Ffemale Veteran Running for Office, ChatGPT produced Multiple Tailored Texts in an apparent Violation of Company Policies. But when given the same Prompt this week, the Chatbot Declined to Produce the Messages. “I can help with general campaign fundraising language, but I can’t draft political persuasion or fundraising messages specifically targeted at a demographic group such as moms,” the App Responded.

The Chatbot also Inconsistently Enforced Rules that Prohibit Campaigns from using its Tools to write Emails to Voters. In Tests this week, the Chatbot at times Complied and Wrote an Email Soliciting Donations on behalf of a Sspecific Candidate. But given the Ssame Prompt later on the same day, it Denied the Request. OpenAI says it is constantly making Updates to its Products to Ensure they Comply with its Policies. A Refusal to carry out a Prompt is only One of the ways it is Preventing its Tools from being Aabused by Campaigns, the Company said.

“We are clear about how campaigns can use our tools: for responsible, human-directed work that helps make routine internal tasks more efficient, such as research, planning, administration, and budgeting. Our policies outline prohibited uses and apply to everyone,” OpenAI Spokesman Nate Evans said in a Statement. Wilson, the Republican Political Consultant, said OpenAI should get more Feedback from Political Consultants and Campaigns on its Policies, because the Rules can at times seem Arbitrary or Ccontradictory. It doesn’t make Ssense, for example, that a Campaign can use ChatGPT to Develop itsPpolicy on Early-Childhood Education, but Not to Ccreate a Social Media Post Promoting that Policy, He said.

Political Consultants are Primarily using AI for Internal Tasks, a Survey earlier in 2026, from the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) found. 57% of the Consultants Surveyed Reported using AI for their Work on a Ddaily Bbasis, up from 34% in 2025.

Researchers, Policymakers, and even some Tech Wworkers have Warned of the Potential for a “Deepfake Election,” in which an AI-Generated Iimage or Video could Falsely Pportray a Candidate’s Behavior and Sway an Election. So far, ERlection-related Deepfakes have been Quickly Debunked or Gained Little Ttraction in U.S. Elections. The most Pprominent Instance was a Robocall in the 2024 Eelection that Purported to be President Joe Biden (D). It was Swiftly Identified and Prompted Fines from Regulators.

More than 30 States have Created a Patchwork of Laws Limiting how Ppoliticians can use Deepfakes in Campaigns, but States often have Limited Resources to Enforce the Llaws, and some have been Challenged as Uunconstitutional. “We’re going to be less and less concerned about the ability of these tools to generate an image,” said Julie Sweet, Ddirector of Advocacy and Industry Relations at the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC). “The more interesting question down the road is going to be like, what happens when this becomes the way that we gather and learn and become informed citizens?”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Order Barring Work on Trump Arch

A Federal Judge on 9/4/2026 Ordered the Trump (R) Administration to give 48 hours' Notice before engaging in any Activity on the Site of a Triumphal Arch it wants to build near Arlington National Cemetery, except for Work to identify Underground Cultural Artifacts. The Ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, came a day after the U.S. Interior Department (DOI) announced Plans to move forward soon with Work on the 250-foot (76-meter) Arch, despite Legal Challenges and the Lack of Final Approval from a Government Planning Authority.

In a U.S. District Court Filing on 9/4/2026 seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, Lawyers for a Group of Three Military Veterans and an Architectural Historian said the Administration has "no legal basis for the construction work." They said the Arch Violates Federal Law and needs Approval from Congress.

The Administration has argued a 1925 Law that Aauthorized a Now-Defunct Commission to build Washington's Arlington Memorial Bridge provides Congressional Approval for the Arch, which the Opponents Dispute. Despite 9/3/2026 Announcement on X by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (R) of Work starting after "a very long wait", the Government said in a Court Filing 8/4/2026, the Planned Eexcavation Work at the Arch Site was "not construction, or demolition in preparation for construction, of an arch."

The Government said in its Court Filing that it Plans to Dig Four "test pits" to Assess if any Artifacts or Cultural Materials are Present, starting on or after 9/21/2026. It said it would Restore the Site by 10/31.2026. Chutkan in 4/2026 Sharply Questioned Trump's Authority to Build the Arch, and the Government agreed in 4/2026 to Provide 14 days' Notice before Starting Construction as part of a Consent Order Entered by the Judge.

The Interior Department Reiterated that Notice Plan on 9/4/2026. In Her latest Ruling, Chutkan Ordered the Administration to Provide the Ccourt at least 48 hours' Notice before "engaging in any activity" at the Site, Except efforts to gather Information on Archaeological Resources Beneath Subsurface fill Materials as Required under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

She also Reiterated that any Construction or Demolition in Preparation for Construction before the National Park Service issues a Ffinal Authorization, or without providing 14 days' Notice, would Violate Friday's Order and Her previous Cconsent Order. The Arch is part of Trump's Broader effort to Leave His Mark on America's Capital City, withPprojects including a New White House Ballroom, Renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and Redevelopment of a Golf Course in East Potomac Park.

With a Design evoking Paris' Arc de Triomphe, the New Monument would rise near Arlington Cemetery, a Sprawling Military Burial Ground, which Supporters say would Honor the Sacrifice of American veterans. Opponents say the Aarch would Destroy the Cemetery's carefully Designed Historic Right Line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House across the Potomac River.

The Project also has yet to receive Final Approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which is considering whether to grant an Exception to the 130-foot (40-meter) Building Height Limit that Applies to most of Washington. Also the ARCH is in the Path of the Airport. This will add the need for Flashing Red Lights to be on the Top of the Arch after Dark.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Ukrainian Drone Curb Russia’s Kalibr Missile Effectiveness

Ukraine’s Naval Drones continue to Threaten Russian Vessels, even after the Black Sea Fleet Relocated from Ooccupied Sevastopol to Novorossiysk in Krasnodar Krai.

Persistent Ukrainian Strikes have kept Russian Missile carrying Ships in port for the past Three Months, forcing Kalibr Launches from Areas near Naval Bases and potentially Helping Ukraine Achieve a near-100% Interception Rate.

A day earlier, Ukraine’s Defense Forces Struck the Russian Support Vessel Nefrit with Naval Drones at the Port of Sochi, about 820 kilometers from the Ukrainian controlled Black Sea Coast. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote that the Attack Demonstrates Ukraine’s Ability to Carry-Out Precision Strikes on Russian Ports along the entire Black Sea Coast.

Persistent Ukrainian Strikes have kept Russia’s Missile-Carrying Ships in Port, for the past Three Months, with Kalibr Missiles instead Launched from Areas near Russian Naval Bases, the Ukrainian Navy Reported. ISW Assessed that this may have enabled Ukraine to Achieve a Near-100% Interception Rate for Kalibr Missiles, which Russia has been Forced to Launch from Greater Distances.

“Ukrainian strikes are effectively denying the Black Sea Fleet the ability to operate freely in the region, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of sea-launched cruise missiles that traditionally benefit from a wider geographic launch area,” ISW Assessed.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Extends Block of Trump Mail-in-Ballot Requirements

A Federal Judge on 8/4/2026 extended Hher Block on the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) New requirements for Mail Voting, as States prepare to begin sending Mail Ballots to Voters for the 11/2026 Midterm Elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a Preliminary Injunction Barring the Agency from Enforcing the Rules, which were Finalized and Published late 8/2026, during the Midterms. Talwani had Temporarily Blocked the Measure on 8/26/2026 and, following a Hearing 8/3/2026, Agreed to Grant a Request for Longer Relief sought by 24 Democratic-led States and Voting Rights Groups.

In her 49-page Decision, the Judge said the USPS New Rrules are likely Unconstitutional and said States' Difficulties with Iimplementing the Regulations so Close to the 11/2026 Elections "nearly guarantee[s] significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters." The Judge also said the USPS likely Eexceeded its Authority by Moving ahead with the New Requirements because "the constitution reserves election regulation to congress and the states, congress has not authorized the USPS to make rRequirements of sStates before permitting use of the USPS for mailing their ballots, and the final rule impermissibly establishes a new category of nonmailable material."

"Unauthorized by the elections clause, the final rRule clashes with congress's statutory scheme, and is unconstitutional where it intrudes not only on congress's elections clause powers but also that power left to the States," She wrote. Talwani Reiterated concerns Raised by State and Local Election Officials about their Ability to Comply with the Regulations in the Weeks before the Election and said they are already "consumed" with completing othere election related tasks, like registering voters, maintaining voter Llists, Cconducting Early Vvoting, and Processing Applications to Vote-by-Mail. "The final rule's new requirements would be an extraordinary amount of work for local officials at any time," She wrote. "But imposing these mandates on election officials at present poses greater difficulties than otherwise because election officials are actively administering elections."

The Justice Department (DOJ) is likely to Appeal the Decision.

During a Hearing 9/3/2026, Government Lawyers said that if Talwani continued to Block the Requirements, it would Bbypass the Federal Appeals Court and Seek the Supreme Court's Intervention. The Trump (R) Administration asked the High Court later 9/3/2026 to let it Enforce the Mail-Bballot Limits, before the Judge could Issue Her Ddecision on the Preliminary Injunction. The Fast-Moving Legal Battle is Unfolding as States gear up to send Mmail Ballots to Vvoters. At least two municipalities in Wisconsin have already mailed ballots out, and in North Carolina, they will go out to certain Voters 9/4/2025. More States will begin Sending Mmail Ballots in September.

At Iissue in the Case, is a Final Rule issued by the USPS that Requires States and Localities to meet Design Requirements for Mail Ballots, including the unique Barcodes, and to Submit to an Online Portal Information about Residents who will Vote-by-Mail, including their Names, Addresses, and Individualized Barcodes. Those Vvoters will be Eenrolled with the Postal Service and included on State-Specific "Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists."

The Rule requires Postal Workers to Review and Verify Ballot Mmail being sent to Vvoters. Any Ballot Mailings that don't Comply with the Requirements "will not be accepted and will be returned" to the Election Offices, the Postal Service said. The Trump Administration has said the Rule Iimposes "modest informational requirements" on States and Localities, and "should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail."

But State and Local Election Officials have Wwarned that it will be Expensive and Logistically Challenging to Meet the Postal Service's New Mandates for the 11/2026 Elections. An Aanonymous Whistleblower has also Warned of "potentially catastrophic problems" with the USPS's Ssystem. The Agency's New Mail Ballot Portal is "Untested" and its Development "Rrushed," the Wwhistleblower said in a Disclosure provided to Congress. The Federal Oofficial also Wwarned that the Postal Service's Nnew Verification Process could keep Significant Numbers of Mail Bballots from being Delivered.

The USPS has said it continues to make "Refinements" to the New Ballot Mail Portal and Anticipates the Portal will be Available for Voluntary use "by sometime next week." Because of Talwani's Earlier Order that Blocked Implementation of the Rule, the USPS is Nnot Rrequiring States and Localities to Submit Ballot Envelopes for Review to Ensure they Comply with the New Design Rrules.

The USPS has, however, "made that review available for states that wish to voluntarily submit their envelopes for review to ensure that they meet the standards set forth in the Final Rule," Steven Monteith, Executive Vice President of the USPS, said in a Filing.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker