The Real Problem Is…

CNN: You're not going to trust mail voting if the Supreme Court allows this to go through?

BLUMENTHAL: I won't. And I think most Americans will view mail voting as lacking credibility because the Postal Service is gonna be screening your ballot and sending them back if it finds… pic.twitter.com/bZz8NxzGA0

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 2, 2026

CNN: You're not going to trust mail voting if the Supreme Court allows this to go through?

BLUMENTHAL: I won't. And I think most Americans will view mail voting as lacking credibility because the Postal Service is gonna be screening your ballot and sending them back if it finds a single discrepancy, and you may not know.

Most voters won’t know there is a problem, nor that their ballot was never received.

There really aren’t that many people paying close attention to this. The real problem comes if the ballots are never delivered to the voters (vote by mail works by sending the voter a ballot). Some states exclusively use vote by mail, which means USPS could disenfranchise the entire state (would even the Sinister Six run that risk? I seriously doubt it.*) Voters in Texas, expecting a ballot that never comes, could try to vote in person. But they’d have to cast a provisional ballot (paperwork), because records would show they were sent one. And if you vote by mail because you can’t get to a polling place….

The whole effort is to prevent the people who actually care enough (a distinct demographic minority), from voting. The sad part is, too many voters won’t see it coming.

*I don’t quite see the Sinister Six allowing it. They refused to rule on the legality of the EO, but the return of the appeal of the TRO might force them to, since there aren’t any jurisdictional issues left. The Court did not try to put Trump back in the White House in 2020, and I don’t see any upside to supporting voter suppression this baldly. EO’s don’t allow you to hide behind “states rights”. Interference this blatant would rebound on the Court, especially as states can’t be barred from electing representatives based on an EO. The retribution of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, would be swift and vicious (and probably not entirely a good thing).

The majority also declined to address the legality of Trump stealing money from government coffers to build his ballroom. An issue Roberts did address. It may be they are reconsidering the wisdom of a “unitary executive,” at least when that executive is Trump.

Congress, after all, could force some Justices into retirement, and whittle down the bench to the remainder, to keep Trump from replacing them. And then wait for 2029 to raise the number again. (As well as impose a code of ethics, overseen by an independent body, so the Court operates like any other Art. III court.)