USPS proposal could halt ballot deliveries to states that don't share voter lists
Source: KGW-TV Portland, OR
Published: 7:01 PM PDT June 10, 2026
Updated: 7:02 PM PDT June 10, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. Oregon leaders are pushing back against a proposed U.S. Postal Service rule that would require states to share voter registration lists and ballot-tracking barcode information with the agency in order to ensure mail ballot delivery. The Postal Service says the proposal is intended to comply with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, ostensibly aimed at strengthening election integrity and oversight of mail voting.
But Oregon officials argue election administration should remain under state control. "It's incredibly bizarre to take a postal service that their job is to deliver mail and then tell them, 'You can't deliver mail to certain people,'" Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield was responding to a proposal that would allow the U.S. Postal Service to consider withholding ballot delivery in states that refuse to provide voter registration information to the agency.
The proposal has raised concerns among some Oregon voters. "They want more excuses to be able to silence the concerns voters have," one man in downtown Portland said."My concern is what they do with it," a woman added. Another said, "The strategy of the Trump government is to get it to the Supreme Court, which they have stacked.". Gov. Tina Kotek also criticized the proposal, saying voting rights must be protected.
"Every voter in Oregon and across the country has the right to a free, fair and equal say in our democracy, and we must stand together to keep that promise," Kotek said in a statement provided to KGW on Wednesday. The Postal Service maintains it is following the president's executive order. Trump has said the effort is intended to protect "voter integrity.". Rayfield and attorneys general from 22 other states have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the order.
Read more: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/elections/usps-proposal-could-block-ballots/283-2c3dd2fd-ef29-4873-9642-8fcaea1dd022
Link to proposed RULE (Federal Register) (PDF) - https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-10968.pdf
NOTABLE ILLEGAL SECTION
Pre-Election Notification of Intent to Use Postal System for Ballot Delivery
DMM 705.24.2 would provide for an optional pre-mailing notice that states
may provide to the Postal Service, and facilitate the process for states to
enroll individuals with the Postal Service for inclusion on state-specific lists
for mail-in and absentee ballot participation.
This provision would allow states to notify the Postal Service of their intent to use
the mail to facilitate their election processes. By disclosing relevant points of
contact, it will allow the Postal Service to more expeditiously provide technical
and other assistance in advance of the election. It will also facilitate the adoption
of the new elements of ballot mailing that are proposed in this regulation.
Mail-In and Absentee Participation List
DMM 705.24.4 would establish a process by which (1) states (including
authorized election officials and their mail service providers) will notify the
Postal Service of the individuals to whom they are mailing a mail-in or
absentee ballot, along with the unique barcode applied to the outbound
and return ballot mail envelope for such individuals such that the name
and barcode of the voter will be included on a Mail-In and Absentee
Participation List; (2) states (including authorized election officials and
their mail service providers) may thereafter add to or modify the list of
enrollees until the last day that ballots may be mailed out to individuals
under state law; and (3) the Postal Service will provide to each states
chief election official a final State-Specific Mail-In and Absentee
Participation List for each state compiling the names of all enrolled
individuals in such state, along with the barcodes associated with such
individuals mail-in or absentee ballots.
Chasstev365
(8,288 posts)Get an emergency hearing in front of a judge to dismiss this Bull Shit NOW!
Also, the Biden administration should have dismissed Louis De Joy buy any means possible when they were in power.
PuraVidaDreamin
(4,722 posts)Knew it was going to get nasty ugly fast.
That's all I know-,
I'm sure they have dirtier tricks up their sleeves.
bucolic_frolic
(56,155 posts)patronage maybe, but not political.
Hope22
(4,941 posts)I would call it political. The USPS has stated that they do not want to handle election ballots. I find that political. I have zero desire to stand in line waiting to vote amongst diseased people. Immune compromised and mobility limited people should not have their voting process tampered with to manipulate voter participation for Republicans. So funny the Rs run everything in my red state yet they are the ones who cry about the rigged system they control!
Lovie777
(24,108 posts)why is the federal government interfering with state rights? I mean Republicans have been screaming state rights for decades, now this?
videohead5
(3,019 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 11, 2026, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Constitutional. It's interfering with states rights. The states control the voting.
DemocracyForever
(266 posts)According to the U.S. constitution, the executive branch has no role in elections so Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and a blatant abuse of power. The Postal Service is a separate entity from the federal government. It's disturbing that DeJoy is willing to do unconstitutional things to curry favor with Trump. The U.S. constitution gives the states the authority to conduct elections NOT the executive branch. It's interesting that the media seems to be incapable of reporting these crucial facts about the constitution.
BumRushDaShow
(172,918 posts)David Steiner is the current Postmaster General as of July 2025 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143498310
DemocracyForever
(266 posts)I don't ever remember hearing that DeJoy had left. The bottom line is that the Postal Service behavior and the Trump executive order are blatantly unconstitutional.