Into the Night
Contributor
It doesn't, Sybil.
Nothing at USPS examines or counts any vote, Sybil.
But it DOES make the election cheating you favor more difficult.
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of midterms
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
But it DOES make the election cheating you favor more difficult.
Into the Night
Contributor
You can't blame Democrat election fraud on Trump, anchovies.
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!
Trump has not violated the Constitution of the United States at all.
Does the head of the US postal union endorse Democrats?
Yes, the leadership of the major U.S. postal unions has consistently endorsed Democrat candidates and causes, though the current APWU president describes himself as a registered Independent focused on working-class issues.
There is no single “US postal union.” The two largest are:
- American Postal Workers Union (APWU) — represents ~200,000+ clerks, maintenance, motor vehicle, and support workers.
- National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) — represents ~290,000–300,000 city letter carriers (active and retired).
- Current president: Jonathan Smith (took office November 2025, succeeding longtime president Mark Dimondstein).
- Under Dimondstein, the APWU National Executive Board endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024 (unanimously, following the AFL-CIO), Bernie Sanders in prior cycles, and supported other progressive/Democrat priorities (voting rights, opposition to privatization, etc.).
- Smith is described as a lifelong advocate for progressive causes. As New York Metro local president, his local endorsed labor-friendly candidates. He has long ties to the broader AFL-CIO labor movement.
- Union PAC spending and activity have overwhelmingly favored Democrats (and more progressive/left-leaning candidates within that spectrum).
- President (as of mid-2026): Brian L. Renfroe (elected 2022; not running for re-election; national election underway with ballots expected late September 2026).
- The NALC Executive Council and convention delegates endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020 and Harris-Walz in 2024. Prior endorsements included Obama and Hillary Clinton.
- Official statements have praised Democrat candidates.
Both unions operate PACs that give the large majority of contributions to Democrats, though they sometimes support individual Republicans on postal-specific issues. Endorsements are made by the national leadership/executive bodies (and sometimes convention delegates) based on candidates’ records on postal jobs, collective bargaining, privatization threats, and broader labor priorities.
In short, the heads and official positions of the main postal unions have reliably backed Democrats in recent presidential cycles.
How will USPS know there are ballots in the envelopes?
If Brad’s objection is that a state could theoretically put something other than a ballot (or nothing at all) inside a correctly barcoded and Portal-registered envelope, that is true in the same way it has always been true of any sealed first-class mailing.
The rule does not create that theoretical possibility; it simply does not eliminate a possibility that already existed. The actual enforcement mechanism is still the refusal to accept non-compliant exteriors and non-registered pieces.
The insinuation does not undermine the rule’s validity as written.
USPS does not open sealed mail.
Brad is desperate. What he's not saying (but is insinuating, because he's a Democrat) is that a state could theoretically put something other than a ballot (or nothing at all) inside a correctly barcoded and Portal-registered envelope.
That is the theoretical residual risk he is pointing at without stating it cleanly.
A state that submits accurate Portal data and applies the matching unique barcodes to the exterior of the envelopes can, in principle, put something other than a ballot (or nothing) inside those sealed envelopes. USPS will still accept and deliver the pieces because the verification stops at the exterior barcode and Portal match. The rule does not create a new physical inspection power, and it does not claim to.
That residual risk is not unique to this rule. It has always existed with sealed first-class Election Mail. States have always been responsible for what they put inside the envelopes they prepare and present. The new rule adds an exterior registration-and-matching layer; it does not replace the state’s role as the entity that prepares and certifies the actual ballot contents.
If the concern is bad-faith state officials deliberately mailing empty or non-ballot envelopes under correct barcodes, that would be a deliberate fraud by the state itself against its own voters and against the integrity of its own election process. That is a different (and more serious) problem than the rule’s design. The rule’s stated purpose is to enforce uniform exterior standards and list registration so that USPS can refuse non-compliant mailings, not to conduct content audits of every sealed envelope.
Brad is apparently slyly highlighting a theoretical failure mode that the rule never purported to close. It does not render the exterior verification mechanism invalid; it simply shows the limit of what an exterior-only check can do.
Why are you asking us?
Poor anchovies, why are you worried?
You know why, and so do I.
Addressing Brad’s questions directly:
1. Is there any way the system can be implemented between now and Election Day?
Yes,. Today is August 25. Election Day is November 3. Most domestic mail ballots begin going out in September or later (some states earlier, many at the 30–45 day mark).
The final rule was written with exactly this compressed timeline in mind. USPS stated that if the remaining injunction(s) are lifted in a timely fashion, implementation would begin immediately so states still have time to meet the envelope standards and submit Portal data before the bulk of ballot mailings. Whether every jurisdiction can actually execute cleanly in the remaining weeks is a practical question of capacity, existing stock, and political will—not a legal impossibility under the rule’s own terms.
2. If the system cannot be implemented between now and Election Day, do they vote by mail the old way, or does it specifically end voting by mail for this election?
It does not automatically end voting by mail.
If the outstanding injunctions remain in place, or if implementation is not activated for the 2026 cycle, the new requirements simply do not apply. States continue under the existing (pre-rule) system: they prepare and present mailings the way they always have, and USPS accepts and delivers them under current standards. The rule does not contain a provision that voids mail voting entirely if the new system is not ready. Non-implementation of the new standards leaves the prior process in place.
3. If the system is such a mess that ballots don’t get through before Election Day, do those votes not count?
That depends on two separate things:
- USPS delivery failure / rejection under the new rule: If a state tries to comply but produces non-compliant envelopes or fails the Portal match, USPS returns the mailing to the state for correction. Those pieces never enter the mailstream. Whether the state can fix and re-submit them in time is a state operational problem. Ballots that never reach voters (or never get returned) obviously cannot be counted.
- Late arrival of properly mailed ballots: Once a ballot is in the mailstream, existing state law still governs whether it is counted if it arrives after Election Day (postmark rules, grace periods, etc.). The USPS rule does not change state receipt deadlines or counting rules. The Supreme Court’s earlier decision this year already upheld states’ ability to count properly postmarked ballots that arrive after Election Day in many jurisdictions.
In short: the rule’s enforcement tool is refusal to accept non-compliant outbound mailings at the front end. It does not rewrite state counting deadlines for ballots that successfully enter and travel through the postal system.
You know why, and so do I.
Now, I expect that he'll deny being worried.
Poor Anchovies.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
isn't it you guys that have always called it a "living" document? Now all of a sudden you are a strict constructionist?
Spare me your crocodile tears
No mail in voting = No democrat party cheating
Which AI is this from? Editing an AI answer shows bias.
Into the Night
Contributor
RQAA.
Chat GPT…
Yes — but there is an important distinction between “the administration can prepare the system” and “USPS can actually enforce it on voters.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday, August 24, 2026, did not give the administration a clean, immediate green light to impose all of the new mail-ballot rules. It lifted one injunction, but a separate nationwide injunction is still blocking USPS from enforcing the key ballot restrictions.
Could they get it implemented before Election Day?
Technically, yes, if the remaining injunction is lifted soon. USPS has already done a surprising amount of the preparation.
It has finalized a 95-page rule that establishes things such as:
- states providing USPS lists of voters who are supposed to receive mail ballots;
- unique barcodes on ballot envelopes;
- new envelope/design requirements;
- a USPS electronic portal for election officials;
- verification of ballot mailings before USPS accepts them.
So this isn’t merely a proposal sitting on someone’s desk. USPS has actually written the operational rules.
The problem is the calendar.
Some states begin sending absentee ballots extremely soon. For example, North Carolina is scheduled to begin sending ballots to military and overseas voters on September 4, and other states follow shortly afterward.
And the new system would require election officials to change procedures, provide voter lists, potentially modify ballot envelopes, establish portal accounts, generate/handle barcodes, and coordinate the information with USPS.
The really important point
The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday wasn’t a ruling that the new system is constitutional.
The Court essentially said the states’ challenge was premature because the government hadn’t yet caused the concrete injury necessary for that particular lawsuit. That leaves the door open for another challenge once implementation actually begins.
And there is still the second injunction specifically blocking USPS implementation.
So I would characterize the situation as:
Today:
Administration can prepare → YesUSPS can finalize procedures → Yes
USPS can currently enforce the new restrictions on ballots → No, because of the remaining injunction
Could that injunction be lifted before November 3? → Absolutely possible
Could the system then be implemented before Election Day? → Legally and technically possible, but extremely difficult and potentially chaotic
Is the Supreme Court saying the new system is definitely legal? → No.
In fact, USPS itself has acknowledged that the rule was designed to be implemented if the courts permit it.
If you want, I can go one step further and explain what would actually have to happen between now and November 3 for this to become operational nationwide — including the court deadlines, USPS implementation, and whether states could simply refuse to cooperate.
Brad is still flailing at the same basic observation.
Yes, the rule does not require the exterior of the envelope to contain the word “ballot” or any explicit notice to the recipient that a ballot is inside. The required exterior elements are the Official Election Mail logo, automation-compatible design, and the unique Intelligent Mail barcode that matches the Portal data. Those are what USPS checks. Nothing in the rule mandates language that tells the voter “this envelope contains your ballot.”
Most states already design their ballot envelopes to make that clear to the voter (return instructions, official markings, etc.), but the federal rule itself does not compel any particular notice language directed at the recipient. A state that wanted to use a completely generic-looking but still rule-compliant exterior could theoretically do so.
That does not break the rule’s verification mechanism. The rule is an acceptance-and-tracking standard based on exterior registration and barcode matching, not a consumer-notice or content-labeling requirement aimed at the voter. Brad is describing a design choice that remains available to states under the rule, not a loophole that renders the exterior check meaningless.
NEXT
In this corner, Chat GPT, and in the other, Grok, does that mean Google AI is the tie breakerChat GPT…
Yes — but there is an important distinction between “the administration can prepare the system” and “USPS can actually enforce it on voters.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday, August 24, 2026, did not give the administration a clean, immediate green light to impose all of the new mail-ballot rules. It lifted one injunction, but a separate nationwide injunction is still blocking USPS from enforcing the key ballot restrictions.
Could they get it implemented before Election Day?
Technically, yes, if the remaining injunction is lifted soon. USPS has already done a surprising amount of the preparation.
It has finalized a 95-page rule that establishes things such as:
- states providing USPS lists of voters who are supposed to receive mail ballots;
- unique barcodes on ballot envelopes;
- new envelope/design requirements;
- a USPS electronic portal for election officials;
- verification of ballot mailings before USPS accepts them.
So this isn’t merely a proposal sitting on someone’s desk. USPS has actually written the operational rules.
The problem is the calendar.
Some states begin sending absentee ballots extremely soon. For example, North Carolina is scheduled to begin sending ballots to military and overseas voters on September 4, and other states follow shortly afterward.
And the new system would require election officials to change procedures, provide voter lists, potentially modify ballot envelopes, establish portal accounts, generate/handle barcodes, and coordinate the information with USPS.
The really important point
The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday wasn’t a ruling that the new system is constitutional.
The Court essentially said the states’ challenge was premature because the government hadn’t yet caused the concrete injury necessary for that particular lawsuit. That leaves the door open for another challenge once implementation actually begins.
And there is still the second injunction specifically blocking USPS implementation.
So I would characterize the situation as:
Today:
USPS can finalize procedures → Yes
USPS can currently enforce the new restrictions on ballots → No, because of the remaining injunction
Could that injunction be lifted before November 3? → Absolutely possible
Could the system then be implemented before Election Day? → Legally and technically possible, but extremely difficult and potentially chaotic
Is the Supreme Court saying the new system is definitely legal? → No.
In fact, USPS itself has acknowledged that the rule was designed to be implemented if the courts permit it.
If you want, I can go one step further and explain what would actually have to happen between now and November 3 for this to become operational nationwide — including the court deadlines, USPS implementation, and whether states could simply refuse to cooperate.