Federal Ballot-Mail Rule Can Proceed, D.C. Circuit Tells Postal Service

The measure aims to reduce the risk of voter fraud.

A woman votes by mail in 2018. Photo: League of Women Voters of California

A federal appeals court said Friday the U.S. Postal Service can proceed with a proposed rule requiring states to submit voter lists and use serialized ballot barcodes before federal ballots are mailed.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed a district judge’s order blocking the Postal Service from issuing and implementing the rule before the November election.

Judges Karen Henderson, Justin Walker, and Bradley Garcia unanimously granted the government’s request. The unsigned order said the Postal Service and the Justice Department had “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal” and “made a strong showing that they would likely succeed on two of their arguments.”

“First, their proposed rule is likely neither constitutionally nor prudentially ripe for review” because it has not been finalized, the court said. Second, “even if adopted” the rule probably would not violate a 2021 settlement agreement between the Postal Service and the NAACP.

The Justice Department, representing the service, argued the district court’s injunction would cause irreparable harm because it “will render [them] unable” to “issue and implement a final rule in advance of the November 2026 general election.”

“In this context, ‘there can be no do over’ once the election occurs,” the appeals court said, quoting a 2016 election-law decision.

The proposed rule would require states and authorized election officials to provide the Postal Service with lists identifying voters receiving mail-in or absentee ballots.

Election officials also would have to place a unique barcode on each outbound and return envelope. The barcode would correspond to an individual voter listed through a proposed Federal Ballot Mail Portal.

The Postal Service would refuse ballots that failed to meet the envelope and barcode requirements. It also would refuse ballots not associated with a voter on a state’s participation list.

If a state declined to submit and certify a list, the Postal Service would not transmit federal ballots to voters in that state.

The NAACP argued those requirements conflicted with a settlement reached after litigation over mail delays during the 2020 election. The deal requires the Postal Service through 2028 to issue national guidance reflecting its “formal nationwide Election Mail practices and policies for prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail,” including ballots.

The NAACP said it “does not allow the Postal Service to put in place a policy of refusing to accept and deliver certain ballots.”

The organization also disputed the government’s ripeness argument, saying the proposed rule was already causing “confusion and apprehension” among election officials and voters.

“There is now nothing ‘hypothetical’” about the rule’s trajectory, the NAACP argued, noting President Trump’s executive order directed the Postal Service to begin rulemaking and move toward implementation before the election.

The NAACP further argued the district court retained authority to enforce the settlement because its terms were incorporated into a court order.

The group said the government had previously acknowledged the court’s jurisdiction but later advanced a theory the agreement could not be specifically enforced against the federal government.

The NAACP also rejected the government’s claim of irreparable harm, arguing that the compressed timeline resulted from the administration’s decision to pursue significant election-mail changes shortly before the election. “The government’s problem is of its own making,” it said.

The appeals court nevertheless concluded that any potential harm to the NAACP or the public did not outweigh the government’s likelihood of success and claimed irreparable injury.

The stay permits the Postal Service to continue the rulemaking process while its appeal proceeds. The court did not decide the ultimate legality of the proposed requirements.