Why the ruling on postal votes is a real headache for Trump

The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the executive order through which Trump had introduced various restrictions on postal voting is of considerable legal and political significance in the run-up to the mid-term elections, which are due to take place in early November.

From a legal perspective, the order issued by Trump pursued the stated aim of combating electoral fraud, but through restrictions that were difficult to implement. The submissions filed prior to the hearing by both Democratic and Republican election officials indicated that the restrictions would have risked seriously compromising the voting process, because the regulations approved by the US Postal Service only at the end of August would have required the approval of millions of new envelopes complying with the new rules within a matter of weeks. The time factor proved decisive, as in this urgent matter the Supreme Court merely upheld the ruling by which the trial judge had suspended the presidential order. It is likely that the applicant states would have prevailed on the merits of the case, given that, under the Constitution, the power to regulate and administer elections lies primarily with the individual states; however, the matter will be debated and finally decided well after the mid-term elections.

But it is above all on a political level that the decision represents a heavy defeat for the president. Firstly, this is yet another defeat for Trump, following those suffered with the Court’s rulings on citizenship and tariffs; it is all the more significant as the new decision was supported not only by the three liberal judges and the Chief Justice, but also by three conservative judges appointed by Trump himself, who lashed out at them, calling them “a pale shadow of what they once were”. Only two ultra-conservative judges (Alito and Thomas) remained by his side. Secondly, since 2020, Trump has based his election rhetoric on the claim that postal voting is inherently insecure and carries the risk of fraud, even though there is no evidence to support this. Furthermore, even ordinary voting can give rise to uncertainties: one need only think of the invalidated ballot papers in Florida in 2000, when George Bush was elected. According to some observers, Trump was in fact aiming to restrict postal voting, which is considered to favour the Democrats, but the attempt failed.

Finally, Trump’s move has created a rift within his own party, as many governors and electoral officials have expressed strong opposition to the federal government’s centralised control over elections. Republicans, in fact, are traditionally staunch guardians of state prerogatives. For this very reason, the legal battle is set to shift to state and local courtrooms, where various aspects of postal voting (for example, the deadlines for receiving postal ballots after election day and signature verification procedures) may be challenged. In the meantime, the Court’s decision will likely be portrayed as an injustice that must be rectified through the ballot box. For this reason too, the mid-term elections will be of decisive importance.