<p>The administration asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for an executive order that would restrict voting by mail, presenting the move as a step to increase election control ahead of the midterm elections. The emergency application was filed after a federal appeals court blocked key parts of the order.</p>
<p>The government argued that the lower court ruling was indefensible and would cause irreparable harm by preventing federal agencies from implementing an order aimed at promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal elections.</p>
<p>The executive order, signed in late March, sought to limit mail-in voting by directing federal oversight of the Postal Service to gain greater control over voting practices and directing the Department of Homeland Security to create state-by-state citizen lists to determine voter eligibility. It also called on the Postal Service to use those lists to decide whether voters should be allowed to vote by mail.</p>
<p>More than 20 Democratic attorneys general challenged the order in court, contending that it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by shifting functions typically regulated by Congress and the states to the executive branch.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court asked the challengers to respond to the government’s emergency application by August 3. The president has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting and pushed for restrictions, citing concerns about fraud, a stance that has faced widespread scrutiny and criticism.</p>
<p>Thus far, federal courts have blocked several aspects of the order. In late June, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled that the president lacks specific constitutional powers over elections and emphasized that the Constitution does not grant those powers to the presidency. A three-judge panel of the First Circuit upheld this decision this weekend, warning that implementing the order could cause confusion and disenfranchise eligible voters for the November midterms.</p>
<p>While the Constitution assigns election powers to states and Congress, the courts have not recognized such presidential authority over election administration, and the Supreme Court has shown skepticism toward measures restricting mail-in voting, including a recent ruling upholding a Mississippi law permitting some mail-in ballots to be counted even if received after Election Day. That decision underscored that federal law does not require ballots to be received by Election Day, though they must be cast by that day.</p>
<br><br><br><br>