Transcription
Breaking news, California could lose its ability to send out mail-in ballots in the November 2026 midterm election. That's according to a court ruling from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., but Democrats are now fighting back, trying to preserve those mail-in ballots.
Coming up, I'll tell you what's going on in various court cases, what the likelihood will be for our November election, whether we'll have mail-in ballots or not, and why we need to settle this whole debate by enacting bipartisan voter ID, by passing Prop 39 in the upcoming election. All of that and more coming up.
I'm Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a California state representative. You may have heard, and we covered on this podcast just about 8 weeks ago, the Trump administration uh handed down an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service not to allow states to use mail-in ballots through the Postal Service if they were not willing to verify the citizenship of voters on their voter rolls. California falls into one of the states that's not allowing the federal government to look at its voter rolls, and uh so this dispute has led the Trump administration to use the Postal Service as leverage.
The the the the the whole executive order uh basically takes the position that the Postal Service, as an independent government agency managed by the president, uh can set its own policies on what mail it will decide to carry. And uh if the Postal Service believes that something being sent through the mail might have a high risk of fraud, then the Postal Service can deny delivery of that item. This is all according to state, sorry, federal law. This is already an existing federal law. The Postal Service has the ability to deny mail service for whatever reason it determines if it believes it's in the public interest. And so the executive order basically takes that legal authority and says, "We don't know who's on the voter rolls in some of these states. They don't have proper citizenship verification or eligibility verification. And worse, they're not even sharing the voter rolls with the Department of Justice as they review state compliance with a variety of federal voting laws." So as a result, the Postal Service is putting together a rule that would basically allow it to deny mail-in ballots for certain states.
Now, the ACLU and other voting groups, Democrat left-wing groups, and Democrat states are now suing to block this rule. But over the weekend, a federal judge handed down a win for the Trump administration. I'm going to sort all this out for you just a moment, and I'll tell you what the likelihood is that um we will or will not have mail-in ballots in California's November election.
But you know, the the best way for us to solve this problem is to enact Prop 39, the California Voter ID Initiative. And that's on the ballot this November, and we need your help to pass it. A yes vote on Prop 39 for voter ID. But it also requires an audit of the voter rolls to make sure that they are being properly and accurately maintained, as well as citizenship verification for people being put on the voter rolls. All of these common sense practices are bipartisan, but California Democrat politicians don't want to implement these good government reforms. That's why we have to put this on the ballot. We have to pass it in November and we need your help to pass Prop 39 for voter ID and citizenship verification. Go to the website voteridinitiative.com. voteridinitiative.com learn more about Prop 39, but more importantly help us in the fight. Chip in a contribution. We are absolutely outgunned by Gavin Newsom and the Democrats trying to defeat Prop 39 with their dishonest campaign. We need everyone to contribute as much as they can, even $5 for fairness in our elections. It's worth it. Second, sign up to volunteer. We need people to take the voter guide that we'll provide you with to Republicans in your neighborhood because we're trying to boost turnout of Republicans for this important reform. And finally, sign up for updates. We will be coming to your neighborhood soon with free lawn signs. Uh and so if you sign up at the bottom of the website, first name, last name, email, phone, and zip code, you will know when we're going to be in your area with the yes on Prop 39 campaign for voter ID. No, we do not sell nor share your information, so please join the fight.
All right, so here's what's happening. Over the weekend, a Washington D.C. federal judge handed down a ruling that is allowing Trump's regulation to proceed forward in the rulemaking process that would basically allow the USPS to deny mail-in ballots for states where the Trump administration cannot verify the voting voting rolls for that state. And a lot of times it's just that the state refuses to even share the voting rolls with the federal government. And so all that's playing out in court, but this three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously halted a lower court order that was blocking the Postal Service from going forward with this restriction on mail-in ballots.
There is a separate case that is pending in Boston that basically says no no no no Postal Service you're overreaching. The ACLU has a prior case with the Biden administration where they agreed that the Postal Service would do its level best to deliver mail on time when it relates to voting. That's what a Boston judge ruled back in late June. But here we have just a matter of a few weeks later the decision USPS can move forward with major mail-in voting changes, a win for election integrity. So basically what the DC Court of Appeals ruled is that the Postal Service has a high likelihood of prevailing on its decision not to allow mail-in ballots in states where they don't have confidence that fraud can be prevented. And the ruling also said that the ACLU case that Biden settled in 2021 is irrelevant, that it has no application to this rule.
Now both sides are going to be appealing. The Trump administration is appealing the Boston case, the Democrats are obviously going to appeal this DC Circuit Court of Appeals case. It's all going to end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to make a decision before the November election one way or another. It may not decide the merits, but it has to make a decision on whether the Postal Service has the legal authority to deny mail service.
There's a few things to look for here because there's some conflicting statutes. First and foremost, there is the statute called the Help America Vote Act. It says that the federal government has certain standards that it wants to see in how states manage their elections and that if they don't follow these standards, well, the state is violating federal law. The Postal Service can point to that federal legislation and say, "We're not just making this crap up. We are seeing that the states are not complying with sharing of information with the federal government. There's an ongoing dispute. We have lack of confidence in how these states are performing. So, because of that lack of confidence, we have a legitimate fact-based argument as to why we don't believe that we should be delivering these mail ballots until this is resolved." So, first and foremost, you know, the the the Democrats are saying that the Postal Service is just engaging in election conspiracy, tampering with an election and deciding not to deliver the mail. They can, the Postal Service can actually cite a federal law giving federal jurisdiction.
Second, the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that the Postal Service can decide not to deliver mail and that it can't be sued. That it has the ability as a government agency to decide when and where it will deliver mail. Now, this was in the matter of other mail going through the Postal Service's jurisdiction, but the case law can easily be applied here because states are merely a customer of the Postal Service when it relates to mailing ballots out. And so, this Supreme Court case that was just handed down earlier in February of this year certainly is applicable.
And then finally, on the Democrat side, they will point to another court case just ruled in June that allowed mail-in ballots to be counted if they are received after the election with a postmark. Now, Republicans were upset about this case being decided in favor of Democrats wanting to count ballots after received after the end of the election. The Supreme Court said, "Yes, you can do that, but it has to be postmarked." But, the reason why this case applies, at least from the Democrats' standpoint, is that they'll say, "Well, um you said that the the the states are the ones that get to implement uh their elections, and we decide that the postal service is to be used for the conduct of elections, and the Supreme Court has said that, you know, we should be trusted in in in developing our standards for when a ballot is timely received." Again, I think that's a stretch, but that's what they're going to hang their hat on.
So, on one side, you've got a federal law supporting this the Postal Service's argument that, "Yes, you know, there are certain standards that govern these ballots, and we don't believe that the states in question aren't complying with those standards. So, therefore, why should we facilitate their fraud or their illegal acts, their noncompliance with federal law?" Um and also you have the recent court case saying the Postal Service does have the ability to deny mail service, and you can't sue them for that. The other side, you do have this recent court case that Democrats were happy about, and so this is ultimately going to have to be decided by the Supreme Court by November.
Here's my over/under on what's going to happen. I think the Supreme Court will cave. I think we're going to have mail-in ballots this election. Just my prediction, I could be wrong. Uh now, let me just say for a moment, as we're moving forward with our voter ID initiative, yes on Prop 39, which ultimately solves all of these problems. We don't have to fight, we don't have to have a a partisan food fight. We can actually do common sense election integrity improvements like voter ID, citizenship verification, auditing the voter rolls. And yes, we can even do that and still allow for mail-in ballots. That's what the bipartisan solution is with Prop 39. That's why we're urging a yes vote on Prop 39. It's a common sense bipartisan good government solution for voter ID, citizenship verification. It does not put additional burdens on voters. And guess what? It allows the convenience of mail-in ballots to continue. I know some of you don't like mail-in ballots. However, California voters, in every poll I've seen, in every focus group that we've witnessed, even Republicans are in favor of mail-in ballots. A majority of them. A majority of Democrats and independents as well. They like the convenience of it. And so, whether you are for or against mail-in ballots, at least let's get Prop 39 passed so that if we do allow mail-in ballots, and it's a convenience that voters in California certainly want, then at least it's done in a manner with internal controls and integrity. That way both sides can get what they want. We can have election integrity, verification of citizenship, verification of identity with Prop 39, and voters who want a mail-in ballot will still be guaranteed the convenience of a mail-in ballot. Let's fix the problem. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to have partisan food food fights and stalemate, and our elections will always have this air of suspicion, and public trust and confidence will continue to be reduced.
So again, I believe that we will likely have mail-in ballots in the November election, notwithstanding the court case on Friday. I think that as multiple court cases go to the Supreme Court that are conflicting on the U.S. Postal Services regulation to not allow mail-in ballots in certain states this November, but the Supreme Court will say, "Look, we can't just pull the plug on mail-in ballots. Um you guys need to fix the problem, but this is too draconian." That's where I think they're going to end up. Because you take a look at the recent court cases with Amy Coney Barrett and Roberts being more squishy, I think that they're going to be more accommodating to Democrat states. You can disagree with the ruling, but I'm just telling you the over-under. This is what I think we're heading towards in November, which is all the more reason why let's just fix the problem in a bipartisan way. Yes on 39. Keep your eye on the prize. Go to the website voteridinitiative.com voteridinitiative.com and sign up to volunteer, donate, or at least sign up for updates so that you can help us with the campaign.
Until next time, I'm Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a California state representative.
>> Thanks for watching and I hope you enjoyed this episode. But before you click away, please subscribe to this channel and click that notification button so you get updated when we post new episodes. Plus, like this video and share it with your friends so that we can help spread our message across the state. Reform California with Carl DeMaio is paid for by Carl DeMaio for State Assembly.
>> [music]