A whistleblower report has raised alarms about a new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) system for vetting mail-in ballots, with allegations that the service is rushing to implement an inadequate system that could reject legitimate ballots and potentially violate court orders. While the claims have sparked concern, election law experts suggest the situation may not be as dire as initially portrayed, emphasizing that legal constraints are likely still operative.
The report, published by Sen. Richard Blumenthal's office, suggests the USPS is developing a ballot-vetting system for upcoming elections that is flawed and could lead to large numbers of valid ballots being rejected. The whistleblower further alleged that this development is proceeding in defiance of a court order.
These claims initially led to shock among Democrats, who viewed them as evidence of an attempt to sabotage elections. However, election law experts consulted by Vox expressed skepticism about the assertion of outright defiance of court orders. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, stated, "This is not a clearcut case to me of defiance."
Despite doubts about deliberate defiance, experts generally agree that the proposed USPS system would be burdensome and could compromise the fairness of elections. The whistleblower's report details a system that is considered by some USPS officials to be a "shit show" and at risk of "catastrophic failure."
The USPS Rule and Whistleblower Allegations
The new USPS rule for mail-in ballots, finalized in late August and stemming from a March executive order, significantly expands the Postal Service's role in elections. Under the rule, state and local officials would be required to upload voter information to a federal database and generate unique barcodes for each mail ballot. The USPS would then scan these barcodes to ensure ballots are sent to the correct voters. Ballots failing the scan would be returned to election officials.
Concerns arise from the practical implementation of this system. Envelopes would need specific designs, and many local officials are not trained for this. The barcode generation system is described as complex, and the federal database has not yet debuted, leaving election officials without training.
Furthermore, the system employs a "zero percent failure rate" approach for batch testing. If even one ballot in a batch fails the scan, the entire batch is returned for reprocessing. Given the rushed development and compliance difficulties, this could lead to significant delays or non-delivery of ballots.
Currently, the entire rule is frozen by a federal district judge who deemed it unlawful for USPS to regulate local elections. However, the whistleblower claims USPS leadership has ordered employees to resume system development, alleging this violates the court order.
Potential for Disruption and Legal Challenges
Experts believe the USPS rule is unlikely to go into effect as currently planned. Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, noted that continuing to develop the IT infrastructure may not constitute direct preparation for the upcoming midterms, potentially allowing USPS to argue the work is for future elections.
"There is no question they hope to implement this in 2026, but there are ways to take steps to implement it for 2028 and maybe be able to implement it for 2026 if the injunction was lifted," Muller said.
The ultimate decision on the rule is expected to rest with the Supreme Court. Legal experts anticipate that statutory and constitutional arguments against USPS exceeding its authority could lead conservative justices to join liberals in blocking the rule, though this is not a certainty.
If the rule were to be implemented, it would likely cause significant disruption. States that rely heavily on mail-in voting could face major challenges. Tammy Patrick, an expert on mail voting, has stated that adherence to the rule's procedures close to Election Day could be "effectively impossible" for local officials.
However, the extent of the disruption and its partisan impact remain uncertain. Alternatives like using private carriers or providing emergency state support for election operations could mitigate some effects. Additionally, analysis suggests that while Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, they are also more likely to vote in person if mail voting becomes difficult. Conversely, Republicans may rely more on low-propensity voters who might be deterred by inconvenient voting methods.
While worst-case scenarios of massive disruptions and disenfranchisement exist, experts caution against predicting that the rule would be tantamount to canceling the midterms. The situation calls for preparedness and contingency planning, rather than complacency or alarmism, emphasizing that voters remain the ultimate actors in a democracy.