What You Need to Know About the USPS Mail Ballot Rule

UPDATED AUGUST 28, 2026

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) could be charged with determining who receives a mail ballot this November under a sweeping rule that threatens to delay or block millions of mail ballots across the country. Issued in response to President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order, the rule is a clear example of federal overreach. It oversteps states’ constitutional authority to administer their own elections. This rule – currently blocked by a Massachusetts district court – remains subject to litigation that will determine whether it is in effect in November.

An Unprecedented Federal Process  

Under the rule, state and local election officials are required to navigate a new federal process before sending mail ballots to voters. Specifically, the rule creates the following mandates:

• Election officials must submit lists of approved mail voters to a Federal Ballot Mail Portal that is not yet available, along with unique barcodes.
• Election officials and mail vendors must print these unique barcodes on all outbound and return ballot envelopes.
• The Postal Service — a federal agency with no election expertise — must refuse to deliver ballots to voters unless the envelopes include barcodes submitted to the portal. This federal agency has no expertise in elections.

While ballots from military and overseas voters are exempt from this proposal, it applies to the vast majority of mail voters across the country. The rule does not apply to primary elections.

A Timeline Designed for Chaos

The highly compressed timeline is a recipe for election chaos and confusion. Because states begin mailing ballots to voters in early September, the Postal Service had only two to three months to build, test, and secure a new database — one that will store the personal data of the tens of millions of Americans who vote by mail.

Because U.S. elections are highly decentralized, the burden will fall on county and municipal officials. These overworked, resource-strapped local clerks would be forced to navigate untested technology, secure new printing vendors, and redesign envelopes during their busiest season. In Massachusetts alone, officials have already spent over $3 million on ballot envelopes that do not comply with the new rule. Small jurisdictions in particular — which are often short-staffed and underfunded — will be left scrambling to find new vendors in time. 

Voters will also pay the price. For example, a technical issue with the portal or a barcode-printing issue could result in the Postal Service rejecting entire batches of outgoing ballots, disenfranchising residents through no fault of their own. In the event of a natural disaster, officials could find themselves unable to access the portal to make updates, just as last-minute ballot requests surge.

A Flawed Basis for Investigations

The Postal Service notes that one potential use case for this tracking data is comparing the numbers of outgoing and returned ballots to detect anomalies. This ignores the realities of how Americans actually vote and how states manage voter data. It assumes every ballot is mailed out to a voter and then returned by mail, ignoring the millions of voters who use ballot drop boxes or hand-deliver their ballots to polling places or election offices. In many states, in-person early voting allows voters to pick up a mail ballot at an elections office to fill out and return on the spot. These ballots either are not returned via the mail system or are never mailed at all.

This system will only create confusion and fuel conspiracy theories. It raises questions around how states conduct elections, as they always have under state law. 

What Happens Next?

The fate of this rule remains up in the air, held up by ongoing court battles.

Court Fights

In June, a Massachusetts district court blocked the Postal Service from taking any steps to implement the executive order in the 23 states that challenged the rule, along with D.C. This ruling was paused by the U.S. Supreme Court on August 24. The court held that the plaintiff states’ challenge to the underlying executive order – which was filed before the Postal Service issued a rule – was premature.In a second case, the same Massachusetts district court judge issued a nationwide injunction, which was lifted following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Twenty-four states and D.C. filed a new lawsuit on August 26, seeking a new injunction. The League of Women Voters have filed a supplemental complaint now that the Postal Service has issued a final rule.

Shortly after these new filings, the Massachusetts court granted a 14-day temporary restraining order prohibiting the Postal Service from moving forward with implementation of the new rule. The court will hear arguments for a new preliminary injunction on September 3.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., initially blocked the Postal Service from implementing a proposed rule, finding that it would violate a 2021 settlement agreement between the Postal Service and the NAACP; however, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. The appeals court found that it was premature for the district court to act before the Postal Service published a final rule. In another case brought by Democratic Party groups, a D.C. district court judge declined to block the executive order because the Postal Service had not yet taken action to implement it. This ruling has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on an expedited briefing schedule. The Postal Service issuing a final rule may revive these cases; the Democratic Party plaintiffs have filed a supplemental complaint in light of recent events.

While court proceedings currently block the rule from taking effect, the situation is constantly evolving. To stay up to date, sign up for The Markup — our weekly update on election law and policy issues and trends.