Post

📬 HAPPENING NOW: A federal judge is considering a block on Trump's dangerous mail voting executive order. Voting rights groups are arguing the order could cause widespread disenfranchisement in this year's midterms. Follow live updates from the courtroom here: https://demdock.com/4wYLHy5

Among those in the courtroom today are women from the Delta Sigma Theta sorority. DST are plaintiffs along with the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. Although the Black sorority, founded amid the suffrage movement, is non-partisan, it supports voting rights. Find more live updates here:

Judge Talwani is interrogating the DOJ and 12 GOP state lawyers defending the USPS final rule over their claims that the voting rights groups' members don't have standing. If they don't, the uptick is USPS could mandate its mail ballot rules against those 12 states. Find more live updates here:

The DOJ told Judge Talwani at the outset of the hearing that the department will immediately appeal to the Supreme Court if she grants a preliminary injunction against USPS’s rule. Find more live updates here:

The DOJ is arguing that they can run out the clock on parties seeking relief from the impacts of USPS’s mail voting restrictions ahead of the midterms. Judge Talwani is pushing back on this claim. Find more live updates here:

Plaintiffs are trying to hammer home that states will struggle to comply with the order in time to smoothly run elections. One lawyer noted that the Trump administration has received a declaration from only one state saying that they’re likely to be able to comply. Find more live updates here:

In an earlier filing, the DOJ compared mail ballots to cremated remains or fake explosive devices, arguing that the postal service is authorized to create rules for delivering sensitive materials. But the plaintiffs noted that in those cases, Congress had passed a statute authorizing the changes:

Judge Talwani says she will not rule from the bench, so we likely should not expect a ruling today. However, she added that she’s committed to “getting something out as quickly as I can.” Find more live updates here:

Judge Talwani seems to want to prevent the DOJ from dragging out an appeal if she rules against them. It suggests not only that she’s likely to find for the plaintiffs, but also that she’s very aware that delay is central to the administration’s strategy. Find more live updates here:

Texas claims that Congress allowed USPS to adopt rules on mail ballots to preempt state laws. Voting organizations are pushing back, arguing that only Congress can determine when USPS may not accept a class of mail unless specific conditions are met — which Congress has not done in this case:

Judge Talwani says the Postal Service has failed to explain to the court exactly how its rule would work in practice. “I have very little from you,” she tells the DOJ and state attorneys. Find more live updates here:

Around 90 minutes into the hearing, Judge Talwani says she will attempt to issue a ruling by 3 p.m. ET today, adding that she’s aiming to “get out my decision as soon as possible.” Find more live updates here:

Correction: Talwani did not say she'd rule by 3 p.m. She said she's aiming to rule quickly. The 3 p.m. deadline was for the DOJ to supplement the record, not for her ruling.

Judge Talwani asks what would happen if 9,999 people could not vote because of an error with one ballot — a situation an anonymous USPS whistleblower warned about in a report Tuesday. “Again, we just don’t see that as a real risk,” Texas’ lawyer says. Find more live updates here:

Correction: This post and others originally referred to “Texas” when they should have referred to intervenor defendant states. Those states, which include Texas, were represented by Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi.

Nearing the end of the hearing, Judge Talwani notes her forthcoming ruling won’t be the last on USPS’s mail voting restrictions. However, she adds that she doesn’t want her ruling “bouncing back and forth” between the district court, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court:

any testing data to support that assumption?