Supreme Court Rules on Mail-In Ballot Processing

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to allow new directives for mail-in ballot processing will require Rhode Island election officials to ensure their procedures for signature verification and voter notification align with the federal guidance as midterm elections approach.

---

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the U.S. Postal Service to implement directives concerning the processing of mail-in ballots. The ruling affects how states handle absentee voting ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. This decision temporarily suspends lower court orders that had blocked the directives. These directives specify requirements for election officials to verify signatures on mail-in ballots and to identify and separate ballots with missing or mismatched signatures within eight hours of receipt. The administration stated these changes aim to standardize ballot handling procedures and ensure election integrity. The directives also require election officials to notify voters within 24 hours of receiving a ballot with a missing signature, allowing voters an opportunity to correct the issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, stated that states have sufficient time to adjust to these new rules. He noted the directives primarily clarify existing requirements for ballot processing rather than introduce entirely new procedures. Several states and voting rights groups had challenged the directives in lower courts. They argued the rules could create administrative burdens for election officials and potentially disenfranchise voters who might not receive timely notifications about ballot errors. The legal challenges focused on whether the Postal Service had exceeded its authority in issuing these directives without congressional approval. Lower courts had found that the directives imposed new requirements on states that went beyond existing federal election law. The Supreme Court's order does not address the full merits of these challenges. It permits the directives to remain in effect while litigation continues in the lower courts. The ultimate legality of the directives will be determined through further judicial proceedings.