Mail-voting crackdown moves ahead as Trump court win opens door to federal action
The next phase of President Donald Trump’s effort to change America’s mail-in-voting system is taking shape after the Supreme Court issued a largely favorable ruling for the White House in...
By Fox News · Fox News
The next phase of President Donald Trump’s effort to change America’s mail-in-voting system is taking shape after the Supreme Court issued a largely favorable ruling for the White House in a challenge to Trump's mail-in ballot restrictions. Former White House deputy counsel Gene Hamilton said federal agencies such as the Postal Service can now move forward with parts of Trump’s election-integrity order, including new ballot-mail standards and efforts involving state citizenship lists, as opposing states wait to see which concrete federal actions could form the basis of new lawsuits. "It’s really interesting what the court did [and] it’s actually exactly what you would expect the court to do," Hamilton told Fox News Digital. TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN ON MAIL-IN VOTING RESTRICTIONS BEFORE MIDTERMS Hamilton said that when Trump directed USPS, DHS and DOJ to prepare for the new protocols, several states immediately claimed harm, but the court’s majority rejected their challenge. Originally, a Boston federal judge agreed with them, but the Supreme Court effectively said "you can’t enjoin [the feds] from thinking" — in Hamilton’s words — because no action had taken place yet. JACKSON RIPS INTO SUPREME COURT COLLEAGUES' 'SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR' ON TRUMP MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER "It reminds the American people … just because something might happen in the future [it] doesn't mean that you're actually harmed today, and that's really the crux of what the court did." Hamilton quipped that if the states challenging the order were proven right — and the possibility of future harm were enough to obtain a legal stay — his organization would "have a field day across the country" trying to head off new policies he and his clients oppose. In that regard, he added that the district judge ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court made an "egregious" misread of Article III powers and essentially said states can dictate which cases the attorney general and DOJ try to prosecute. He emphasiz…