2026-09-15T20:56:05.662Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/15/politics/mail-voting-rules-supreme-court-decision
民主党和共和党执政州的选举官员本周一在最高法院驳回特朗普总统对邮寄投票的全面限制后松了一口气。此前他们曾警告称,这些限制将颠覆邮寄投票制度,并可能在中期选举中剥夺数百万选民的投票权。
这项裁决意味着选民可以按照各州此前的法律规定通过邮寄方式投票。尽管选举官员一直对特朗普试图大幅复杂化投票流程的做法感到担忧,但他们在过去几个月里一直正确地预判法院会介入阻止这项提案,并将工作重点放在照常推进邮寄投票项目上。
不过,由于特朗普试图修改规则的举动仍留下了混乱隐患,选举官员表示,他们可能会采取额外措施,确保选民对邮寄投票感到安心。
根据特朗普试图推行的规则,美国邮政总局仅会在选票信封带有每位选民专属条形码的情况下递送选票——一些选区原本既没时间也没钱更换不符合要求的材料,因此难以满足这一要求。他还要求各州向美国邮政总局提供邮寄选民名单,甚至提出只要有一份信封信息与提交给该局的选民资料不符,整批选票都可能被邮政工作人员拒收。
选举官员表示,数周以来,选民一直在担忧诉讼风波下通过邮寄方式投票的问题,但官员们一直鼓励选民“抛开所有杂音”。
在最高法院做出裁决前提交的法庭文件中,两党选举官员均警告称,强行推行特朗普政府提议的邮寄投票修改方案根本不可行,即便不会彻底封杀各州的邮寄投票,也会造成严重混乱。
与此同时,随着诉讼在法院间推进,大多数选举官员表示,他们一直低调行事,按照特朗普的指令最终会被法院驳回的预设准备选举工作——即便在那些公开支持修改方案的共和党执政州也是如此。
“我一直告诉大家,过去习惯用哪种方式投票,今年也可以照此办理,”内布拉斯加州中部霍尔县选举专员特雷西·奥弗斯特里特说道,“暂且抛开所有杂音就好。”
如今最高法院的裁决证明这种做法是明智的,部分州已经开始寄出选票,随着选举日临近,各地选票寄送工作也在逐日推进。
印第安纳州马里恩县(包括印第安纳波利斯市)的书记官凯特·斯威尼·贝尔表示,最高法院的裁决让选举官员可以最终打消选民的疑虑。
“我认为特朗普总统不会停止试图动摇选举结果的做法,”她说,“但凭借美国最高法院的这项裁决,我认为这一问题已经得到解决——这也将成为我们向选民传递的信息之一。”
本周一晚的最高法院裁决,是特朗普在单方面修改选举规则、扩大联邦政府对地方官员投票管理控制权的一系列法律尝试中遭遇的又一次重创。
总统2025年发布的一项行政令,试图提高选民登记的公民身份证明要求,被多家下级法院驳回。
特朗普政府还在司法部发起的一场运动中接连受挫:司法部要求各州提交未删减的选民登记档案,以便审计不合格选民,但30个州和哥伦比亚特区拒绝配合并提起诉讼。在已就该案实质内容做出裁决的23个地区法院中,全部驳回了政府的主张(仅有一个州与司法部达成和解),一家上诉法院也两次做出不利于特朗普的裁决。
特朗普在不涉及政府强制要求州选举官员执行新指令的案件中运气更好:最高法院在本次选举周期的高风险选区重划争议中采纳了司法部的部分观点。此外,总统有望在另一项请求中胜诉,即要求最高法院恢复一项移民数据项目——他的政府曾鼓励各州利用该项目自愿核查选民名册中的非公民身份人员。
“从现在到11月3日选举日,我们听到的所有言论,都是政府为制造虚假混乱和困惑而放出的杂音,”选举创新与研究中心负责人戴维·贝克尔说道,“这些尝试正在失败。我们从初选的高投票率中就能看到这一点,从初选期间安全且出色的选举管理中也能看到。未来我们也会继续看到这样的结果。”
选民仍存警惕与困惑
地方选举官员表示,如今的当务之急是让选民相信自己可以放心地通过邮寄方式投票。
华盛顿州务卿史蒂夫·霍布斯表示,他最近几周一直在努力消除民众对邮寄投票的误解。上月最高法院最初允许政府推进邮寄投票规则制定,本周又阻止了中期选举期间规则的实施,相关质疑声也随之加剧。
“人们跑来问我:‘你打算怎么办?以后没法邮寄投票了吧?’”霍布斯说,“我跟他们说:‘不,邮寄投票还会继续。’”
宾夕法尼亚州西南部费耶特县选举主任玛丽贝思·库兹尼克表示,周二有一名选民来到办公室登记邮寄投票,这名选民此前误以为在周一最高法院裁决前自己都不被允许邮寄投票。
“我的工作就是向选民传达:一切都没有改变,只要愿意,他们当然可以邮寄投票——我们会像往常一样尽一切所能提供服务,”库兹尼克说。
密歇根州发起了一场“自信投票”运动,向选民保证他们可以在11月按照自己的意愿投票。州务卿副长官阿戈霍·埃德文比正在全州走访,与选民和地方选举官员会面,消除人们对投票选择和联邦干预的困惑,包括被驳回的政府邮寄投票规则。
“不幸的是,由于这项拟议中的规则,外界存在大量困惑,”埃德文比说,“我们需要做一些工作来让民众安心:是的,你们可以邮寄投票。这一点从未改变,本选举周期也不会改变。”
选举官员表示,围绕邮政服务和邮寄选票的法律斗争,并未改变缺席投票面临的一个更根本的问题:邮件递送延误。
密歇根州和其他州正引导选民使用选票投递箱,而非通过邮寄方式返还选票。几乎所有投票都通过邮寄方式进行的华盛顿州也采取了同样的做法。
“民众对邮政服务确实存在疑虑和一定程度的不信任,”霍布斯说,“我们正在向选民保证,他们的选票会被计票。他们确实需要更多地选择将选票投入投递箱,而非邮箱,这样更稳妥。”
斯威尼·贝尔表示,邮政服务的递送问题并非新鲜事——但选民需要了解相关情况,以确保自己的选票能够被计入。
“我在向团体发表演讲时,会告诉他们邮寄投票不是拖延者的投票方式,”她说,“我们会继续向选民保证,哪怕通过邮寄方式投票,他们的选票也会被计入。但不要拖延。”
曾担任宾夕法尼亚州务卿、如今经营一家选举安全公司的凯西·布克瓦尔表示,选举官员应该让选民了解邮件递送延误的问题,以及投递箱和提前投票等替代方案。
“选举官员承认邮件投递延误确实存在,这一点很重要。这是我们目前面临的实际情况,新冠疫情期间我们遇到过,其他时候也遇到过,”布克瓦尔说,“我认为今年选举官员们一直在做,未来也会继续做的,就是为选民提供尽可能多的现场投票选项。”
美国邮政工人工会正在开展耗资数百万美元的广告宣传活动,为邮寄投票辩护,反击任何试图破坏邮寄投票的行为。本周,相关广告将在北卡罗来纳州开始播出,该州的邮寄选票已经开始寄送。
“这项裁决对所有美国人来说都是一场胜利,对致力于为民众服务的邮政工人来说也是一种解脱,”美国邮政工人工会主席乔纳森·史密斯说道。
美国邮政总局未回应CNN就最高法院裁决及其邮寄投票规则提出的置评请求。
最高法院这项命令的具体投票结果尚未明确;可以确定的是,至少有5名大法官投票反对特朗普的邮寄投票限制立即生效,另有两名保守派大法官公开支持政府的主张。
不过,最高法院多数方发布的简短无署名命令传递了一个显著信号:政府未能克服立即恢复这些要求的高举证门槛。但法院同时表示,政府“不太可能在实质争议中胜诉”,这意味着如果未来选举中再次推动该计划,多数大法官大概率会推翻这项方案。
除了大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯的异议,大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺也发表了协同意见,暗示他认为美国邮政总局的要求未来可能合法,尽管他投票反对立即恢复该规则。
周二白宫新闻发布会上,司法部长托德·布兰奇暗示,政府可能会在2028年总统大选前继续推动邮寄投票规则的修改。
“特朗普总统确保选举自由公平的努力,不会只在11月或之后就停止,”布兰奇说,“所以我预计你们会看到这项工作继续推进。”
与此同时,特朗普抨击了最高法院——以及他第一任期内任命的三名大法官。
“共和党人又从美国最高法院拿到了一项糟糕的裁决,法院系统花了很长时间才做出裁决,还部分归咎于没有时间实施解决方案,解决我们完全腐败、失控的邮寄投票‘灾难’——这在全世界都是个笑话,我们是唯一一个不得不忍受这种摧毁国家的骗局的国家,”特朗普在Truth Social上写道。
“这些人根本不是我面试过要担任美国最高法院大法官的人,他们只不过是原本的自己的影子而已,”他补充道。
挑战邮寄投票倡议的律师事务所之一伊莱亚斯律师事务所合伙人拉利·马达里表示,她预计在2028年大选前,这些邮寄投票限制措施和其他干预举措还会再次被推动。
“未来几年,这个问题很可能会再次提交到最高法院,”马达里说,“但我认为,最高法院已经在此传递了相当明确的信息:联邦政府的所作所为并不合法。”
What’s next for mail voting after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump
2026-09-15T20:56:05.662Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/15/politics/mail-voting-rules-supreme-court-decision
Election officials in both Democratic and Republican-led states breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump’s sweeping restrictions on mail-in balloting Monday, which they had warned would upend vote-by-mail and potentially disenfranchise millions of voters in the midterms.
The decision means the voters can cast ballots by mail as the laws in their state previously allowed. While election officials have been anxious about Trump’s attempts to severely complicate the process, they have spent the last several months assuming — correctly — that courts would intervene to block his proposal, and they’ve focused on making their mail voting programs available as usual.
Still, because of lingering confusion around Trump’s efforts to change the rules, election officials say they’ll likely take extra steps to ensure voters feel comfortable casting ballots by mail.
Under the rules Trump was trying to impose, the US Postal Service would only deliver ballots if their envelopes had unique barcodes for each voter — a requirement some jurisdictions would have struggled to meet, as they had neither the time nor the funding to replace non-compliant materials. He also wanted to require states to provide their mail voter lists to USPS, with the possibility that entire batches of ballots would be rejected by postal workersif just one envelope did not match the voter information submitted with the agency.
Election officials say that voters have been expressing concerns for weeks about using the mail to vote in light of the litigation, but that they’ve encouraged their voters to “put all of the noise aside.”
In court filings leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, both Republican and Democratic election officials warned that requiring the Trump administration’s proposed changes to mail balloting were unworkable and would have caused major disruptions — if not blocked mail voting in their states altogether.
At the same time, as the litigation wound its way through the courts, most election officials said they were simply keeping their heads down and preparing for the election under the assumption that Trump’s directives would ultimately be blocked by the courts — even in Republican-led states that argued in favor of the changes.
“I’ve been telling people however they like to vote in the past — plan to vote that way this year too,” said Tracy Overstreet, election commissioner in central Nebraska’s Hall County. “Kind of put all the noise aside.”
That work has now proven prudent in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, with ballots already sent out in some states and more going out every day as Election Day draws closer.
Kate Sweeney Bell, the clerk in Marion County, Indiana, which includes Indianapolis, said the Supreme Court’s decision gives election officials finality that they can use to reassure their voters.
“I don’t think that President Trump is done trying to sow more doubt into the outcome of the election,” she said. “But with the decision by the highest court in the land, I think this has been addressed — and that will be part of our message.”
Monday night’s Supreme Court ruling was a capstone of a series of legal setbacks Trump has faced in his efforts to unilaterally change election rules or otherwise give the federal government more control over how local officials carry out voting practices.
A 2025 executive order by the president that sought to boost proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration was blocked by several lower courts.
The Trump administration has also been dealt a wave of defeats in a Justice Department campaign to force states to hand over their unredacted voter registration files, so DOJ can audit them for ineligible voters. The DOJ sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for refusing. All 23 of the district courts to have ruled on the merits of DOJ’s demands have rejected the administration’s arguments (one state reached a settlement in the litigation), and an appeals court has ruled twice against Trump as well.
Trump has had better luck in court cases that do not involve new mandates for state election officials from the government, with the Supreme Court adopting some of his DOJ’s views in high-stakes redistricting disputes for this cycle. And the president might ultimately prevail in his request that the Supreme Court revive an immigrant data program his administration has encouraged states to use to do voluntary reviews of their voter rolls for non-citizens.
“All of the things we’re going to hear between now and November 3 are noise intended by the administration to create an impression of chaos and confusion that is false,” said David Becker, who heads the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Those efforts are failing. We’re seeing it in high turnout in the primaries. We’re seeing it in the very secure and excellent election administration that we’ve seen in the primaries. And we’ll continue to see that.”
Lingering alarm and confusion among voters
Local election officials say the race is on now to ensure their voters are confident they can cast their ballots through the mail.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said he has spent recent weeks trying to dispel misconceptions about mail voting. The questions intensified after the Supreme Court initially allowed the administration to move ahead with its mail-ballot rulemaking last month, before blocking implementation of the rules for the midterms this week.
“People were coming up to me saying, ‘Oh, what are you going to do? There’s no vote by mail,’” Hobbs said. “I said, ‘No, it’s still going on.’”
Marybeth Kuznik, director of elections in southwestern Pennsylvania’s Fayette County, said that she had a voter come to her office to sign up for a mail ballot Tuesday who had incorrectly believed they weren’t allowed before Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.
“My job here is to get the word out to my voters that nothing has changed, and yes, they can vote by mail if that’s how they’d like to — and we’ll do everything we can as we always do,” Kuznik said.
Michigan has launched a “Cast with Confidence” campaign to reassure voters that they can cast ballots as they choose in November. Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie is traveling the state to meet with voters and local election officials and combat confusion over voting options and federal interference, including the administration’s blocked mail ballot rules.
“There is a lot of confusion out there, unfortunately, because of this proposed rule,” Edevbie said. “We’re going to have to do some work to reassure people that, yes, you can vote by mail. That has never changed, and it’s not going to change for this cycle.”
Election officials say that the legal fight over the Postal Service and mail ballots does not change a more fundamental problem for absentee voting: delays in mail delivery.
Michigan and other states are steering voters toward using ballot drop boxes instead of returning ballots through the mail. Washington state, where nearly all voting is by mail, is doing the same.
“There are definitely doubts, and there’s a degree of distrust” in the Postal Service, Hobbs said. “What we’re doing is reassuring voters that their votes will be counted. They do have to move more from putting their mail into a mailbox to a drop box because that is more certain.”
Sweeney Bell said that the Postal Service’s delivery issues are not new — but are important for voters to be aware of to ensure their ballots are counted.
“When I go and speak to groups, I let them know that voting by mail is not the procrastinator’s way to cast a ballot,” she said. “We’re continuing to reassure our voters that their vote will count, even if it’s by mail. But don’t delay.”
Kathy Boockvar, a former Pennsylvania secretary of state who runs an election security firm, said election officials should make sure their voters know about mail delivery issues — as well as alternatives like drop boxes and early voting.
“It’s important for election officials to affirm that there are mail delays. That is just a factual situation that we’re dealing with. We dealt with it in Covid. We’ve dealt with it in other times,” Boockvar said. “What election officials I think have been doing this year and will continue to do is have as many in-person options available to voters as possible.”
The American Postal Workers Union is mounting its own multimillion dollar ad campaign defending vote-by-mail against efforts to undermine it. This week, ads will start airing in North Carolina, where mail ballots are already going out.
“This decision is a victory for every American and a relief for postal workers who are committed to serving them,” said APWU President Jonathan Smith.
The Postal Service did not respond to CNN’s questions about the Supreme Court decision or its mail ballot rules.
The exact vote count of the Supreme Court’s order is not clear; it is only certain that at least five justices voted against Trump’s mail voting limits taking effect now, and two conservatives publicly sided with the administration.
Still, the brief, unsigned order from the court’s majority sent a notable signal. It said that the administration had failed to overcome the high burden for unfreezing the requirements now. But the court also said the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge,” meaning that the majority was likely to strike down the plan if it was pushed for a future election as well.
Besides the dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence hinting he thought the USPS requirements could be legal down the road even though he voted not to revive them now.
At a White House press briefing Tuesday, Attorney General Todd Blanche left open the possibility the administration could continue pursuing changes to mail voting ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
“President Trump’s efforts to make sure that we have free and fair elections are not going to stop just in November or after or thereafter,” Blanche said. “So I expect you’re going to see that work continue.”
In the meantime, Trump has attacked the Supreme Court — and the three justices he appointed in his first term.
“Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting ‘disaster,’ which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM,” Trump said on Truth Social.
“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” he added.
Lali Madduri, a partner at Elias Law Group, one of the firms challenging the mail-ballot initiative, said she expects another push for these mail ballot restrictions — and other interventions — ahead of the 2028 election.
“It could very well reach the [Supreme Court] again in the next couple of years,” Madduri said. “But I think [the court] already sent a pretty strong message here that it doesn’t think that the what the federal government is doing is lawful.”
发表回复