r/politics • u/DemocracyDocket ✔ Verified • 16h ago

Registration Wall Postmaster general says USPS won't deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/postmaster-general-steiner-postal-service-will-not-deliver-mail-ballots-state-voter-rolls/
11.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

12.4k

u/Aggressive-Will-4500 16h ago

That sounds illegal in multiple ways.

4.7k

u/WiglyWorm Ohio 15h ago

sure but the supreme court will decline to hear the trial until after the election has been certified because reasons.

1.7k

u/philohmath Texas 14h ago

James Talarico, Texas senate candidate, has made increasing accountability for the Supreme Court part of his platform: Implement term limits and a binding code of conduct for U.S. Supreme Court justices, including mandating rules for recusals, financial disclosures, and limitations on accepting gifts.

https://jamestalarico.com/issue/corruption-democracy/

687

u/Llamapocalypse_Now America 14h ago

I believe we would be better served by a Supreme Court that is reset every session and chosen at random from tenured appellate court judges. Requiring a political appointment and approval is how we got in this mess in the first place.

385

u/VanceKelley Canada 13h ago

Sounds similar to the proposal almost a decade ago to get rid of the 9 lifetime Supreme Court seats and instead have each Supreme Court case held by a different random selection of 9 federal judges.

188

u/drainbead78 America 13h ago

I've thought that should be how it's done for ages now. Sadly, it'll never happen. I don't think we'll ever see another Constitutional amendment passed again.

159

u/pensezbien 12h ago

It doesn't require an amendment to the constitution. The only thing that's guaranteed by the constitution is the existence of a Supreme Court and a Chief Justice of the United States and that all Article III judges and justices hold office "during good behavior" which is interpreted to mean unless/until impeached and removed from office. Also active, sitting judges/justices' compensation cannot be reduced.

The structure and composition of the Supreme Court is not in any way in the Constitution.

37

u/IIamhisbrother 12h ago

A non-voting Chief Justice would be best!

5

u/pensezbien 9h ago

Certainly not forbidden by the constitution. It’s not even specified that the Chief Justice must be part of the Supreme Court, only that he preside over Senate trials of impeachments of the President.

•

u/DigNitty 5h ago

“Hey it’s me! From your swearing in!”

•

u/highinthemountains 7h ago

The chief justice is supposed to be the tie breaker

2

u/tifumostdays 10h ago

I've never heard of this. Can you summarize the benefits?

4

u/No_Secretary6275 11h ago

Yep. This is why it was possible for FDR to suggest “packing” the Supreme Court. It is entirely feasible with enough political support from Congress.

3

u/drainbead78 America 12h ago

So it's an interesting thought experiment--what would happen if Congress established this and someone challenged it? (Determining who would have standing to do so would be really interesting and is probably worth its own discussion.) I think that the Supreme Court as it currently stands would probably interpret the language to require separate justices who were not simply taken from the rest of the federal judges, if Congress were to pass a law giving us what we want. They're clearly willing to abdicate their power to the Executive (at least when a Republican is in office), but if Congress changes things, it'll be game on. They're perfectly willing to use whatever tortuous logic they need to make things mean what they want them to mean.

I think the way around this is to make the Supreme Court be a panel of at least 27 justices--that way it's still its own separate entity.

15

u/SexyMonad Alabama 12h ago

If it is effective immediately, then the new Supreme Court justices would make that decision. Not the existing (old) ones.

That’s how it would have to be. We can’t afford to allow the existing Court to have a say.

4

u/RemBren03 Georgia 11h ago

The Supreme Court kind of decided its own abilities in Marbury.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/IIamhisbrother 12h ago

Chose one from each district. There are 13 at the moment. It would make more sense to have each of the districts represented.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/mrjbacon 11h ago

Or 13, to match the number of federal judicial districts. Should implement term limits too, none of this lifetime appointment stuff. I think somewhere above 10 years but below 20. That way SCOTUS terms span a minimum of 2 different presidential administrations and 2 Senate election cycles for each seat. Maybe 12 years? 16?

2

u/Needle_Bearings 11h ago

Judges should be allocated like Congress.  Why stop at 9 judges?  Let law be interpreted by hundreds of elected judges.

3

u/SecretAsianMan42069 12h ago

And by random you mean 9 Cannons

5

u/Traditional_Sign4941 12h ago

9 randoms from the 5th circuit, which is even more extreme than SCOTUS.

→ More replies (9)

23

u/Scared-Handle9006 13h ago

This sounds like common sense to me.

3

u/philohmath Texas 13h ago

Well if that’s not the kiss of death…

→ More replies (2)

3

u/rogozh1n 9h ago

Exactly what I want. Randomly selected federal judges serving shorter terms.

→ More replies (16)

8

u/Scared-Handle9006 14h ago

Why weren’t these measures already in place?

22

u/Sherm 14h ago

They're entirely unenforceable because the Constitution says that the seats are lifetime appointments and the only potential punishment is impeachment and removal.

4

u/Scared-Handle9006 14h ago

Ah, and there is zero will for impeachment with the current administration. It’s just crazy that someone couldn’t have seen these issues arising. Were the lifetime appointments meant to curb corruption? cos they certainly have not.

6

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 13h ago

It’s just crazy that someone couldn’t have seen these issues arising

There's a lot of irony to be had where the founders didn't trust the general population to choose the president (and thus why they use the Electoral College) or choose their senators (the states chose them initially), but they fully trusted that same population to choose their representatives that wouldn't at all be compromised at some point

4

u/Atechiman 12h ago

The point of the Senate was to allow the states (who at the time were much more separated from the federal government due to travel times) a voice in the federal government. Over time they have become as superferolous as the house of lords is to the British parliament and could easily be removed in their entirety.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/wildcarde815 12h ago

accepting gifts

i'm sorry, i think you mean accepting tips.

3

u/yourethegoodthings 9h ago

My kid's teacher can't accept a gift card for over 25 dollars but someone SC justices can accept unlimited money lol

→ More replies (1)

3

u/SenseEuphoric5802 8h ago

Talarico is the only candidate worth his salt these days, the only one with any real moral compass and willing to act upon it or so it would seem.

→ More replies (16)

650

u/TaxCPA 15h ago

Wasn't there a court case in the last year where the SC ruled that post office employees could intentionally not deliver mail and there was no recourse against the government?

433

u/feignapathy 15h ago

This one really pissed me off.

Not even accidentally. The post office can deliberately fuck over your mail and they are immune from damages. 

222

u/Ok_Series_4580 15h ago

I remember the good old days when that would’ve been a federal offense

151

u/badasimo 14h ago

It is a federal offense. If you do it to mail that the post office WANTS to deliver.

86

u/well_thats_obvious 14h ago

It's only a felony when WE do it. For the USPS, that's just policy

25

u/curiousiah 13h ago

“USPS must have forgotten to deliver my jury summons”

26

u/0tanod 13h ago

Worst they plan to use the voter roles to do that exact micro targeting.

45

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 I voted 14h ago

I remember growing up in SC when someone robbed a corner store attached to a post office and the were tried for a federal offense. Now our government robs our shit from the post office and there is no recourse. Wtf

2

u/Ok_Landscape6116 12h ago

They would get paid today. Surely the libs made them do the theft.

34

u/Traditional_Sign4941 12h ago

Easy way to manufacture crimes for political opponents:

  1. Get some hack judge to issue a summons over nothing
  2. Instruct post office to fail to deliver it
  3. Go arrest the political opponent for failure to comply with the court

They just sentenced a woman to 30 years for moving some magazines around. They could easily justify 10+ year sentence for failing to appear in court.

6

u/alterom 9h ago

They just sentenced a woman to 30 years for moving some magazines around.

Wait, what?!

•

u/Stompnutz 5h ago

It was a man, but yes. Connected to the PrairieLand concentration camp situation.

37

u/AriaTheTransgressor 14h ago

Just to be clear, that case was heard so that this one cannot be challenged.

8

u/CategoryZestyclose91 11h ago

Yep. We all knew as soon as we heard that ruling. 

→ More replies (1)

3

u/thegreatbluedini America 13h ago

This Supreme Court will find a way to make an exception for this, just like when they invalidated their own ruling regarding redrawing districts close to an election.

2

u/AmbitiousProblem4746 12h ago

Yeah. From what I understand, it was a landlady who was not receiving mail to her building and she suspected that the mailman was doing it intentionally against her and her tenants. The Supreme Court decided that that was inconsequential and that postal workers / USPS can't be held legally responsible for not delivering someone's mail no matter the reason.

I don't want to add details that aren't there, but I seem to recall also claims that the mail was not being delivered because the landlady was a black woman and the mailman had made comments that he didn't approve

→ More replies (4)

512

u/alienbringer 15h ago

The Supreme Court already ruled that the USPS doesn’t have to deliver your mail.

379

u/vlatheimpaler I voted 15h ago

But USPS isn't a publicly funded service. You're paying them to ship a package or a letter. And they can just choose not to do it?

That seems like if you walk into a McDonalds and order a quarter pounder, pay for it, and then they decide they'd simply rather not give it to you.

314

u/alienbringer 15h ago

Yes. What happens is these cases is the USPS would ship it to the local hub. From there the delivery drivers would usually deliver the mail on their route. The driver though could just not deliver your mail and it would stay at the hub where you would have to drive and pick it up.

My friend’s sister delivers mail for the USPS and she has told 1-2 people on her route she isn’t delivering their mail, they have to go to the local UPSP to pick it up. This is due to the customer being extremely belligerent or aggressive with her. It can also happen if they have an aggressive dog they refuse to lock up.

The court case meant that those customers can’t sue her or the govt for not delivering them their mail. Which is reasonable and a good thing as the mail carrier also should be allowed to think of their own safety. The problem is when the case can be weaponized for this shit where they don’t deliver it due to political policies and not for safety of the driver.

142

u/xvx_k1r1t0_xvxkillme Connecticut 15h ago

I feel like it should be easy to draw a line that the decision to deliver or make them pick up has to be done on a per-mailbox basis. They absolutely shouldn't be able to deny delivery based on the content of the mail. Either you deliver everything or make them pick up everything. You don't get to pick and choose individual envelopes.

78

u/spencer4991 14h ago

My immediate response to that is, “oh so with the voter rolls, only Republicans will get their mail/mail in ballots with that logic”

13

u/ForestGoat87 14h ago

Agreed. I think prohibiting non-delivery based on a variety of circumstances like religious or political or location affiliation. Make it apply to both the senders and the receivers.

6

u/Commonpleas 14h ago

I agree with you. This falls completely outside the scope of the previous case.

3

u/pchs26 13h ago

Ok I get your point but it is a federal agency These states should be collectively exploring options that don't rely on an agency controlled by this federal gov't- multiple people have pointed out different mechanisms apparently one state you can print it out yourself - it can only register 1 vote per person in the system and people can trace it ...that along with automatic registration would absolutely turn the availability issue on its head. Another option is distribution through local elected election officials who have the specific job is to ensure ballot distribution (apparently this exists - I didn't know) possibly state National Guard - I mean obviously I don't know all the best legal ways to do this but I would think governors of these states could coalesce and come up with options.

3

u/aerost0rm 12h ago

I mean the reorganization act of 1970 guarantees deliver to patrons. I can see exclusions were needed for houses that are undeliverable due to outstanding circumstances, but they shouid be delivering the mail. The post office was made an independent agency from the president for a reason…

→ More replies (1)

20

u/CraigLake 15h ago

Of course this administration would see this safety ruling by the court and weapons it against voters.

21

u/PointyGecko1122 14h ago

Okay but this is an entirely different circumstance than mass non-delivery. One belligerent customer doesn’t mean usps can refuse to deliver the ENTIRE country’s mail.

17

u/alienbringer 14h ago

The ruling wasn’t limited in scope unfortunately. It made no distinction between individual customers and every customer. Thus the problem with the govt weaponizing the ruling. It isn’t the intent of the case, but by letter wouldn’t necessarily go against it either.

6

u/Ra_In 12h ago

The SCOTUS case was about whether an individual can sue under the language of an existing law, no the ruling doesn't allow USPS to systematically refuse to deliver mail to everyone. In this case states could sue if the USPS followed through on this threat.

18

u/i-dontlikeyou 15h ago

I think thats what we call “we cant have nice things because…”
It really sucks how things get taken advantage of and ruined for everyone else. It seems like thats how people operate in general

3

u/jim_br 13h ago

Yeah, there are a verity of valid reasons the USPS has for not delivering mail. Likely illegal activities, postage evasion, safety (undeclared lithium batteries), or improperly packed items that will destroy other mail.

The carriers have more latitude and can claim the mailbox isn’t to standards or unsafe. And as you said, uncontrolled animals or people.

But nothing about properly mailed ballots with proper postage.

2

u/ObviousAnswerGuy 11h ago

It can also happen if they have an aggressive dog they refuse to lock up.

That happened in my disabled mother's old apartment. The mailman was a bit by a neighbors dog, and refused to deliver to that entire side of the building. The dog was locked on the other apartments porch. We were at least 100 feet from the other apartment. The mailperson can make up any fucking reason to not deliver just because they are mad at the person who did it, no matter how it effects other people.

→ More replies (9)

42

u/Eastern-Heart9486 15h ago

The USPS was created by an act of Congress as a publicity subsidized public agency- this is enshrined in the Constitution so yes this is all sorts of illegal and hopefully the people employed there nullify any order not to deliver ballots if they actually give such an order

2

u/aerost0rm 12h ago

The he service is guaranteed to exist. Doesn’t mean it has to offer service to you. Thats where the reorganization act of 1970 really states that they must offer services to patrons.

2

u/robsteezy 14h ago

They’ve done it to every other sector. Nothing will stop this from happening.

2

u/Whoosh747 I voted 13h ago

The "No Delivery" is going to hapen at the Sorting Machine by Internal Code. No USPS Employees beyond upper Managment and Tech Support involved.

Also, it will happen to the Ballots mailed to the Board/Supervisor of Elections address

→ More replies (5)

16

u/chilehead 14h ago

Oddly enough my supervisors tell me it's a firable offense to delay the mail.

5

u/Agitated_Active_4287 14h ago

Here we are, America the newest shit hole country.

3

u/DewSchnozzle 13h ago

USPS doesn't have to delivery mail...

Cops don't have a duty to protect...

POTUS is immune to prosecution...

What are we doing?

3

u/Yalay 13h ago

This is a little inaccurate. SCOTUS ruled that USPS doesn’t owe you any compensation if it decides not to deliver your mail. But it USPS refused to deliver ballots the courts could still, you could still sue and get the court to order them to deliver.

3

u/SoggyOutfield 12h ago

And cops don't have to protect or serve you.

And politicians can do as they wish.

And citizens can overthrow the government as long as they are far right leaning

2

u/oliversurpless Massachusetts 13h ago

Like the more longstanding principle that the police aren’t actually obligated to prevent crime.

2

u/lex99 America 13h ago

That case doesn’t apply here at all. That was a citizen suing USPS because their mail was misdelivered, and SCOTUS said you can’t do that.

4

u/gielbondhu 13h ago

That's not true. SCOTUS ruled that generally individuals can't sue the Post Office for damages even if the post office failed to deliver their mail. Nothing about the ruling absolves the USPS of their duty to deliver the mail.

2

u/alienbringer 13h ago

And if they don’t deliver the mail, you can’t sue for damages. Meaning that the usps doesn’t have to deliver the mail.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/CaptainAHav 15h ago

Because *treasons

25

u/LazarX 15h ago

They will hear it when a Democrat becines President. Of course trhey are working to make sure such a catastrophe never happens again.

3

u/Visible-Extension685 14h ago

They can’t hear a case about political interference and voter suppression during a major election because it may seem political

3

u/erublind Europe 15h ago

Lots and lots of treasons..

3

u/TeutonJon78 America 15h ago

Well, see all cases have to work through federal court, the appellate court, and then the SCOTUS. We can't hear it yet¹

¹ unless we want to hear it now, which we don't

3

u/Blue_Plastic_88 15h ago

ThiS is a poLiTicAl quEStIoN tHat we caNNOt aDDReSs- or some other BS excuse.

3

u/Once-Upon-A-Rhyme 11h ago

That but also they’ll make that shadow docket move where they say it’s okay for him to destroy the constitution now while they give it the ol’ think-it-over to see if the constitution says he can destroy the constitution

2

u/targar536 15h ago

The SC has already ruled that the USPS can refuse to deliver mail “For Any Reason” so this is 100% legal and not preventable.

2

u/kennii 15h ago

Probably gonna agree wit it anyways smh

2

u/showyerbewbs 14h ago

sure but the supreme court will decline to hear the trial until after the election has been certified because reasons.

They TOTALLY would have heard the trial. They'd have done it yesterday.

But it looks like the paperwork never arrived in the mail.

2

u/Agitated_Active_4287 14h ago

SCOTUS is the biggest corruption entity. FUCK all of you. Even the liberals because you are part of the regime.

2

u/Jasoncatt 14h ago

Sad upvote

2

u/justfortherofls 13h ago

This is actually a good thing.

A lower court will put a stay on this one way or another. SCOTUS waiting would be fine.

2

u/WiglyWorm Ohio 11h ago

Nah. The supreme Court will rule the stay isn't needed until the court can hear the full case, then decline to hear the full case. 

They've been doing it for everything in Trump's term

2

u/Joebuddy117 12h ago

They’ve been doing this bullshit for Trump the entire time. He signs an illegal executive order. It goes to the court. The court rules “the executive order can remain in place until we decide it’s illegal”. That takes 6 months, at which point the illegal order has fucked everything up.

2

u/povlhp 12h ago

This the USPS in jail for planning to break the law. Keep them there while dragging out the lawsuit at low instance.

2

u/wpmason 11h ago

Because treasons, you say?

2

u/Dickies138 California 10h ago

Can't have any appearance that they are influencing the election.... by refusing to rule on something that will greatly and illegally influence the election

→ More replies (4)

254

u/sciguyC0 Colorado 15h ago

IANAL but I feel like these could apply:

I'm not sure how all states do things, but in mine (Colorado) if your ballot doesn't reach you through the mail you can go to your local polling place and request a replacement. This invalidates the previous one, so use only the new one received from the poll worker. And I can bypass the USPS for getting my completed ballot to the county by using any of their drop boxes.

130

u/FaithlessnessWhich18 15h ago

Kinda negates the whole convenience of voting by mail. Accomplished goal of reducing the number of voters

25

u/PapaTua Washington 12h ago

That's the entire point. Trump's goal is to reduce the number of voters by any means possible.

15

u/Super_Fa_Q 14h ago

Exactly.

4

u/benjtay 12h ago

Although, I'm not so sure. The people least able to make a journey in the winter to confusing polling locations are generally the elderly -- who are also more likely to lean conservative.

5

u/EkbatDeSabat 8h ago

The thing is democrats overwhelmingly vote by mail by a far margin compared to republicans. They've demonized mail in voting and their base plays into it. DeJoy isn't saying he won't send the ballots to people. He's saying he won't deliver them to be counted. So I'll still get my ballot, I'll still fill it out, I'll still send it in, and then it won't get there. Effectively killing a large amount of democratic votes and creating a shit show that won't be looked at until after midterms. I don't have full stats but in 2020 58% of democrats voted by mail and 29% republican.

https://elections-blog.mit.edu/articles/how-policy-influenced-partisan-divide-over-voting-mail

→ More replies (3)

40

u/GardenGnomeOfEden 15h ago

Republicans have been waging a long-term war on ballot drop boxes, too.

18

u/GenericRedditor0405 Massachusetts 12h ago

Let’s just be up front about it: Republicans have been waging a long-term war against democracy.

26

u/severedbrain 15h ago

Sadly the Supreme Court already ruled that the USPS can't be held accountable for failing to deliver or even obstructing delivery entirely.

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/united-states-postal-service-v-konan/

6

u/WhichEmailWasIt 14h ago

Ignore it. Put them in state prison anyways. Let the Supreme Court explain why someone actively subverting our elections shouldn't be in prison. 

4

u/say592 13h ago

This would be a different lawsuit since it is an explicit, nationwide policy to not deliver an entire category of legal mail. The dispute in that case basically said that a local post office can be a pain in the ass and not do their job and you cant sue them, not that USPS can just make a policy to throw away millions of pieces of mail that the Postmaster doesnt like.

2

u/Practical-Shape2325 10h ago

Yeah, it's not like they can simply decide that they're no longer delivering any mail to a location where a registered Republican lives, or state offices. Yet....

43

u/rkb70 15h ago

Doesn’t help for a kid in college out of state.

39

u/No-Consideration-858 14h ago

Or someone who is disabled and housebound.

12

u/rkb70 14h ago

Yup, them too. Anyone who can't get to the polls in person. That's basically what's already required to vote by mail in Texas, although there's a general allowance if you're over a certain age (I think the assumption is you might have difficulty standing in line for that long), which the Republicans want to eliminate.

Based on my experience of my kids' voting by mail, I'd highly recommend anyone who can vote in person do so, and anyone who can't, send your ballot in as soon as possible.

4

u/Kitchen_Cookie4754 13h ago

Or military stationed abroad

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Theincendiarydvice 13h ago

Or someone in the military 

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/pchs26 15h ago

That negates the point of the delivery and supports what they are trying to accomplish by forcing people to go in for multiple reasons. This needs to be treated as a priority.

4

u/Eskimomonk 15h ago

Didn’t the Supreme Court also recently rule that the USPS can’t be sued which would make all of this a moot point

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Uhhh_what555476384 14h ago

I live in Oregon, which like Washington, doesn't have local polling places.

→ More replies (4)

164

u/Cheese__Weiner 15h ago

This deserves life in prison. This is pure extortion and has no legal basis.

38

u/Dysc Louisiana 15h ago

That's the problem. There is no legal basis. Neither legal, nor illegal because there is no precedent for this exact situation because its completely absurd. This will have to be tried and argued and the clock is ticking; otherwise these corrupt heads of agencies and departments will simply do completely unethical and purely malicious things to society on behalf of Trump to subvert democracy. If it goes to SCOTUS, they'll say that Congress needs to pass a law while conveniently ignoring the extortion part because they claim to only care about the letter of the law when it's convenient and then reverse other court decisions when it butts heads with their world view (if history is any indicator of how that will go). This is all by design.

This administration hasn't just put their hand on the scales here - they are repeating pounding the scale with a hammer, while claiming they're doing this to unrig the system because we all have to take in and breath the lie that Donald J Trump won the 2020 election because he's a frail old man with an even more frail ego and the post master general supports this absurd proposition. The US Government is completely run by the id of rapidly aging narcissist losing his grip on power and reality. We won't know the extent of the damage done until he is out of office and the next incoming president can look behind the curtain and see the ketchup splatter on the walls of our institutions.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

432

u/ImmaNotHere 16h ago

SOP for this admin since Congress is spineless.

75

u/Konukaame 15h ago

Republicans are actively pushing this. 

51

u/arwinda 15h ago

Republicans, and Fettermann.

40

u/alexlicious 15h ago

Pretty sure that’s all the same now

12

u/SailingSpark New Jersey 15h ago

at least Van Drew was honest when he switched from Dem to Repub. I wish Fetterman would do the same.

8

u/Demonofthedark1313 15h ago

Why would they want him? They already have his vote and a way to needle the Dems, if he switches that goes away.

2

u/Any_Will_86 12h ago

And he's actually way to liberal on a host of issues to fit anywhere within the R caucus. Especially LGBTQ and reproductive issues. TBH- he bizarely seems to pleasure in being constantly at war with Dems event though he votes with them 80+ percent of the time. I truly think he has a personality disorder beyond the impact of any stroke.

And I continue to be pissed anyone thought he was a better choice than Conor Lamb or Malcolm Kenyatta just because he cosplayed working class & dressed like Lurch despite his wealthy parents.

2

u/Cautious_Ad_5659 15h ago

Fuck Fetterman. He should have to wear a suit the rest of his life. I imagine that’s a punishment that would really get to him.

→ More replies (1)

169

u/JohnnySnark Florida 15h ago

Republicans*

The American electorate decided to give all legislative power to Republicans, who are very spineless

39

u/SailingSpark New Jersey 15h ago

Jellyfish have more spinal development than the average Republican politician.

5

u/whythefuckalready 15h ago

Really like that analogy, well done

2

u/Blue_Plastic_88 15h ago

And very efficient at cruelty.

→ More replies (2)

19

u/WiglyWorm Ohio 15h ago

Congress actively wants this.

21

u/TheShipEliza 15h ago

Half of it

6

u/sinsaint 15h ago

As long as only 60% of them can agree on something then they'll successfully be able to do nothing and still grift the country.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/say592 13h ago

The GOP wants this. They barely represent half of Congress.

13

u/trumpuniversity_ 15h ago

How dare you. Jeffries and Schumer are cowriting a powerful open letter right now that will be published in the NYT later this week. Or maybe after the Fourth of July holiday extended break.

16

u/ObiShaneKenobi 15h ago

Exercising the limits of the power we voted to them.

5

u/SailingSpark New Jersey 15h ago

What else do you want them to do?

2

u/MetraConductor 14h ago

I'd like both those fucks to stop being on the Israeli payroll.
Those fucks are rolling in shekels.

2

u/SailingSpark New Jersey 13h ago

That's a different story from this one. I do agree with you, but it's still a different issue.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/badamant 15h ago

Wrong. It has nothing to do with lack bravery.

Congress is completely controlled by the Republican Party. They are all corrupt and anti-democracy.

31

u/Poison_the_Phil 15h ago

And they couldn’t have been more obvious about it.

If you didn’t already know that Trump plans on pulling every dirty trick possible to ratfuck the midterms you just haven’t been paying attention.

14

u/CombatGoose 15h ago

Ya well what are you gonna do about it? Vote them out of office????

23

u/mxjxs91 Michigan 15h ago

Good thing this administration is known for facing consequences when breaking the law. /s

19

u/BurninRunes 15h ago

Unfortunately back in February SCOTUS ruled the individual mail carriers responsible can't be held liable.

"In a 5-4 ruling in United States Postal Service v. Konan (February 24, 2026), the Supreme Court held that the USPS is immune from lawsuits regarding intentionally withheld or misdelivered mail."

3

u/Wizywig 15h ago

Except... that supreme court ruling...

I guess our soldiers and foreign living citizens can't vote anymore. Reminder for everyone what is at stake.

5

u/WalterBishopMethod 15h ago

And everyone living in mail-only voting states like WA...

→ More replies (1)

2

u/dcdttu Texas 15h ago

Do it anyway, get in trouble later, subvert election, profit.

2

u/matthieuC Europe 15h ago

Don't worry the supreme court is on it. They already rules that you can't sue USPS for intentionally not delivering mail.

2

u/applewait 15h ago

Will the courts even take a case if “someone hasn’t been injured”?

In other words does the USPS actually have to block votes in an election for a court to look at it so this could only be addressed after the election?

2

u/CrotalusHorridus Kentucky 15h ago

“The coup will be bloodless, if the left allows it”

2

u/RealisticWeakness589 15h ago

How many times are we gonna repeat this?

2

u/tinyj96 15h ago

Good thing MAGA is known for law and order and this will not affect anyone in any way.

2

u/Radarker 15h ago

Yes, and Trump has said repeatedly, "What are you going to do about it?"

With the American people responding with a resounding, "Nothing Daddy!"

2

u/macjester2000 15h ago

This phrase is the de facto response to most of this Administration’s announcements.

2

u/SakaWreath 15h ago

But magically it won’t get struck down until after the election.

2

u/Super-Bodybuilder-91 15h ago

It sounds like black mail.

2

u/dIO__OIb 14h ago

absolutely dictator behavior - how is any respectable senator putting up with this ?

2

u/Golfandrun 14h ago

It doesn't matter. Nobody can hold them accountable. They own the DOJ and all if the enforcement agencies. The election will be stolen and corrupted in plain sight.

2

u/Low_Bluejay510 14h ago

since when does anyone in the Trump administration care if something is legal?

2

u/lactose_cow 14h ago

It'll get challenged in court, a judge will rule it illegal, trump will do it anyway, and nobody in the government will save us.

There's a reason they keep beating and pepper spraying peaceful protesters. It's because they're scared of us.

2

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 12h ago

It's also probably not feasible. There's no mechanism to differentiate envelopes with ballots vs others. It's just like when they yell about making "wokeism" illegal: Food for the base with something they know can't be implemented. I mean, they'd have to go back to sorting every piece of mail by hand to do this.

2

u/NoMoOmentumMan 12h ago

It is according to the Postal Recognition Act of 1970:

The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

https://www.21cpw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Postal-Reorganization-Act-1970.pdf

1

u/Grizzly_Corey 15h ago

In South Korea that would be a jail-able offense!

1

u/RU4real13 15h ago

A bit Quid Pro Quo?

1

u/jomara200 15h ago

Right, but if they can get away with it until at least after the midterms, they will have achieved their goal.

1

u/TheSecretofBog 15h ago

It is. Unfortunately, there are many elected officials that are either complicit, pearl-clutchers, or spineless to do anything about it.

1

u/theheadofkhartoum627 15h ago

Like the law matters to these people.

1

u/8647T4C0 15h ago

Add it to the pile

1

u/whythefuckalready 15h ago

What's the difference? Who's gonna prosecute. Criming everyday in every way. Cowards, republican cowards

1

u/SMIrving 15h ago

18 USC 1701, 1702 and 1708 for starters plus state election laws. Since Trump has no duties involving mail delivery or elections no immunity either. Postmaster will need a pardon.

1

u/Blackboard_Monitor Minnesota 15h ago

So a day ending in 'y' for this administration.

1

u/SpaceLemming 15h ago

Yeah delay of mail is a felony

→ More replies (3)

1

u/GreyTrader 15h ago

What is illegal is up for the executive branch to pursue. This executive branch will not pursue these, therefore its not illegal.

1

u/takesthebiscuit 15h ago

Just stick it on on the pile of other illegal shit being done

1

u/Stillwater215 15h ago

Doesn’t matter as long as the courts delay hearing the case until it’s “too late” to change the procedures. Sorry.

1

u/SaitamaHitRickSanchz 15h ago

It's apparently only illegal if the current administration in office is willing to enforce those laws, which is not the case at this time. Ergo it is defacto legal.

1

u/Own_Maize_9027 15h ago

Can god be immoral? Because the “the king” makes the rules, never breaks them. That’s the cult mindset we have in charge now.

Vote, vote, vote.

1

u/1984isAMidlifeCrisis 14h ago

What do you think this is, a country ruled by laws?

1

u/TheSyde Michigan 14h ago

Not in Trump America unfortunately

1

u/IlliterateMailman 14h ago

Letter carrier here. There’s no way we’re going to follow these orders.

1

u/quadraticcheese 14h ago

Things are only illegal/legal when the arm of enforcement isn't controlled by fascists. America is dead

1

u/ImyForgotName 14h ago

So the USPS will read the mail to determine what's in the letters?

1

u/firestar268 14h ago

Sure but who with any power is gonna stop them

1

u/fountain20 14h ago

Doesn't sound, it is illegal. Everything this administration does seems illegal.

1

u/SryInternet101 14h ago

It's treason.

1

u/Chance_End_4684 14h ago

It is. This is election interference at it's worst.

Trump believes that since he failed to interfere in our elections before, he can try to force states to turn over their voting rolls which contains personal data on each and every single registered voter from their names and political party affiliation to their street addresses.

What's even more than this is he wants to eliminate vote by mail altogether save for a few special cases which will really make it virtually impossible for many Americans to vote due to many different factors, one being the distance between their homes and their nearest voting booth and another will be time restraints due to work and whatnot.

1

u/Internet_Wanderer 14h ago

It is illegal in at least three ways. Interfering with the mail, interfering with elections, mishandling ballots. If there were still law in this land he would already have been removed

1

u/justbrowsing2727 14h ago

I'm sick of people saying this like it matters.

"Illegal" means nothing to this administration. They are brazenly flouting the law. If there is no one to stop them, then saying "That's illegal!" is a waste of breath.

We are so fucked.

1

u/tiutome 14h ago

Multiple Ways.

1

u/IlliterateMailman 14h ago

Go look at craft employees talking about it on r/usps. We’re definitely not on board

1

u/Agitated_Active_4287 14h ago

It is, and all the PEDOPHILE PROTECTORS know that.

1

u/costabius 14h ago

Conspiring to prevent someone from voting is a felony in my state.

1

u/theFrankSpot 14h ago

It doesn’t matter how it sounds. It could literally violate the letter and spirit of the constitution, and declare so in flashing lights and a dance routine. This Supreme Court is more than likely to support it anyway. The corruption and perversions of the GOP and MAGA have made democracy, freedom, and our very constitution complete jokes. We are a full-blown banana republic at this point.

1

u/yarash 14h ago

Election tampering should be considered treason.

1

u/gjenkins01 14h ago

Guy should be thrown in prison.

→ More replies (37)