Politique · MidtermsUn juge gèle une règle de l’USPS sur le vote par correspondance à l’approche de l’envoi des bulletinsRédigé 7 septembre 2026 à 21:22 UTCRegarderTranscription0:00A federal judge has blocked the Postal Service from increasing oversight of mail-in0:04voting, halting an administration rule the court found likely unconstitutional.0:09The rule would have forced states to overhaul their procedures just weeks before0:12ballots go out, threatening disruption for voters who rely on mail-in voting.0:17The midterm elections are the rule's target, and the mail ballot calendar is short0:21because voters and election officials are already in motion.0:25For millions of Americans who vote by mail, the change would have added new hurdles0:29at the worst possible time.0:31The block is temporary, but the administration could appeal.0:35The question now, does this dispute escalate to the Supreme Court?0:38Experts caution that the fight is likely to make its way there, where the0:42constitutional question the judge flagged would be settled by a different body.0:46The administration's order would have required states to rework their mail-in voting0:50systems.0:50It directed the Postal Service to increase its oversight, likely adding new steps0:54for verifying and processing mail ballots.0:57States would have had to adjust their procedures to meet those standards.1:00But with the first ballots scheduled to go out in weeks, that was not feasible.1:03The judge found that even if the rule were lawful, states could not comply in time.1:07His reasoning ran on two tracks.1:09On the merits, the rule is likely unconstitutional.1:12On timing, it is practically impossible to implement before the midterms.1:16With ballots set to mail in weeks, the postal system is already under pressure to1:20deliver.1:21A new oversight rule would have added more steps to this process, making it harder1:25for states to keep up.1:27What we know from the court, the judge issued a temporary order blocking the Postal1:31Service from increasing oversight of mail-in voting.1:33He said the rule is likely unconstitutional.1:36He also said it would be practically impossible for states to comply before the1:39midterm elections.1:41These are the confirmed findings.1:42Experts caution that the dispute may end up at the Supreme Court, but that is a1:46prediction, not a certainty.1:48The effect of the block is that states proceed with their existing mail-in voting1:52arrangements, while the Postal Service is barred from the additional oversight.1:56For voters who rely on mail-in ballots, This is a reprieve from a change arriving2:01weeks before ballots leave the post office.2:03For state and local officials, it means they do not have to overhaul an election2:07already underway.2:08This is the first judicial check on the administration's latest effort to restrict2:12voting by mail, and it underscores the tension between election security measures2:16and ballot access.2:17The postal service, which delivers ballots in every state, will now operate under2:21the same rules as before.2:23Without the new oversight, the rule would have imposed.2:25However, the dispute is not resolved.2:27Whether the administration appeals immediately and how courts handle a2:30fast-approaching election calendar remain the open questions.2:33The temporary block is a holding action, not a final ruling on the rule's merits.2:37If the administration appeals, the case could move quickly, but the Supreme Court's2:41involvement would take time.2:42The election is in November, and ballots are mailed in weeks, so any appeal would2:46need to be expedited.2:47The courts are often reluctant to change election rolls close to an election, but2:51the administration might seek emergency relief.2:54Experts anticipate that the administration will appeal and that the case could reach2:58the Supreme Court before the election.3:00though that is not certain.3:01The constitutional question the judge flagged would then be settled by a higher3:04court.3:05The judge who issued the order, the states or groups that challenged the rule, and3:09the rule's specific operational requirements have not been disclosed.3:13That lack of detail means we do not know the exact legal basis for the3:16constitutional finding, nor the precise scope of the oversight the Postal Service3:20would have been required to perform.3:22What we do know is that the block stands for now, giving states and voters a measure3:26of certainty as the midterms approach.3:28But the ultimate constitutional question is likely to be decided by a different3:32body, the Supreme Court.3:33For now, the temporary order remains in effect, and the Postal Service is barred3:38from the additional oversight.Lire l’articleChronologie de l’histoireHeyDexLe format court ↗
