The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a coalition of 24 states, including Connecticut and New York, sued the Trump administration over its mail-in voting executive order before they had proper standing.
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling allows the Trump administration to move forward in trying to restrict mail-in voting. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it’ll happen before the consequential midterm elections in November.
The ruling centers on an Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump (R) in March. It, in part, allows the government to prosecute state officials who give ballots to ineligible voters. (Also included in the EO is authority for the U.S. Postal Service to decide whether a voter should receive a mail-in ballot; however, that aspect was not mentioned in Monday’s ruling.)
The Supreme Court didn’t actually decide whether the EO was constitutional. It decided that the states did not have standing to sue as early as they did, before the impact of the new rules could be fully quantified.
“The court found that our request to block implementation was premature at this stage because Trump has yet to implement the order,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D) said. “The moment he steps outside the bounds of the law to implement this illegal order, we will not hesitate to take further action to protect the legitimacy of our elections.”
“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word. The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots,” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said.
A lower court is still deciding the order's legality, but Monday’s ruling means the administration can move forward with implementing the new regulations in the meantime.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), on CNN, said the EO was an attempt by the president to restrict voting.
“He's going to instruct either the Department of Homeland Security or the Postal Service potentially to remove people from the voter rolls, or to profile people for removal from the voter rolls that are more likely to vote for Democrats, for instance, people who live in cities,” He told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
However, there are only a few weeks left before early voting begins in many states, making it unlikely that the order will be implemented before the midterms.
“That's the real fear, is that he's going to be very selective in who he tries to disqualify from voting,” Murphy said. “Again, I don't think it ever goes into effect, but that's clearly the danger.”
