Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. only seven weeks before the November 3 election, that there was not enough time to implement new federal rules for mail-in ballots.

While it did not rule on the merits of the U.S Postal System’s proposed rules to implement President Donald Trump’s Executive Order imposing federal involvement in the states’ processes for voting by mail, the majority opinion did state that this action was “. . . arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred that there was insufficient time to adequately implement the regulations, thus the action “would be arbitrary and capricious.”

However, he disagreed with the majority that opined “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the order and would have granted the administration’s request to pause the Boston-based District Court judge’s ruling.

“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. California stood up for democracy and we won,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a press release after the Supreme Court decision was announced. “. . . Finally, fifty days out, and the American people have certainty when it comes to our country’s electoral process: Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it. And I encourage every Californian to make their voice heard this November.”

The Supreme Court supported the Sept. 10 decision of the Appeals Court for the First Circuit, which also ruled against the Administration’s request to lift the preliminary injunction of the recently released USPS regulations for mail-in ballots.

These changes would have required state and local election officials to redesign and reprint ballot envelopes, enroll millions of voters in a new and untested USPS system, and meet burdensome requirements that would allow USPS to refuse to deliver mail ballots that do not comply.

The Appeals Court opined that “Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful.” The Court had ruled that elections are controlled by Congress and the States and neither party had approved the Postal Service regulations.

“The changes at issue could disenfranchise millions of voters, especially given how little time there is to implement them,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a press release announcing the Appeals Court decision. “As a reminder, President Trump has repeatedly voted by mail himself — he doesn’t get to decide that mail voting is good enough for him, but not for other Americans.”

In addition, a group of 38 state election officials, many of them Republicans, asked the Supreme Court to delay the rules until after the November election. “Attempting to implement the Rule now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials,” they wrote to the Court.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer had filed two separate appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn lower court decisions that enjoined or stayed immediate action to change the federal role in the mid-term elections.

One appeal was the result of a lawsuit filed several months ago. The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center brought a lawsuit in federal court in Washington challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s role in ballot verification.

In the original June ruling, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan agreed that the modified system violates federal privacy laws, the Social Security Act, and the federal laws governing administrative agencies, and she barred the government from using the modified system.

On Sept. 4, a divided U.S. Appeal Court for the District of Columbia agreed that the stay should not be removed until the merits of the whole case were decided. This decision was appealed four days later.

The Appeals Court concluded that “The government has not made the requisite “strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits” of the Social Security Act claim, , , “

In the appeal of this ruling, Sauer claimed that the original District Court ruling was “indefensible” and “threatens the integrity of upcoming elections. . .”

California is one of more than 20 states litigating these proposed rules. The outcome of this issue could have a major effect on California’s elections. In the June primary, statewide turnout was 40.8 %, but nearly 90 % of voters submitted their ballots by mail. For the 2024 Presidential election, turnout was 71.4 %, of which 80 % of ballots were cast by mail. In Riverside County, for both of those elections, the percentage of vote-by-mails ballots was nearly the same.

“After losing in the district and appellate courts, the Trump Administration has now lost at the U.S. Supreme Court. Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office was one of several opposing these rules. “The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher. Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form.”

Although he votes by mail in Florida, Trump as continually argued, without evidence, that mail-in ballots are a major source of election fraud.