Mail Voting Protections Remain in Place

Millions of Americans who plan to vote by mail in the November 2026 midterm election can continue using their states’ existing mail ballot systems after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to allow new U.S. Postal Service restrictions to take effect before Election Day. During a Sept. 22 national media briefing hosted by American Community Media (ACoM), four voting rights attorneys explained what the Supreme Court decision means, why they challenged the new postal requirements, and what voters should know as the Nov. 3 election approaches. The speakers were Niyati Shah of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, John Cusick of the Legal Defense Fund, Justin Lam of the Brennan Center for Justice, and Ethan Herenstein of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project. The briefing focused not only on the legal battle but also on the practical consequences for voters who depend on mail voting, including people with disabilities, rural residents, students, military and overseas voters, older Americans and voters who may face language or transportation barriers. Invite 9-22-26 Mail-In Votes

What the Supreme Court Decision Means

The dispute grew out of new USPS requirements that would have changed how election officials across the country prepared and processed mail ballots. Among other provisions, election jurisdictions would have been required to use approved ballot envelopes, upload voter information into a federal postal portal and ensure that identifying information and barcodes matched USPS records. Ethan Herenstein, a staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, offered one of the clearest summaries for voters. “The bottom line for the November elections is simple: the new USPS restrictions are blocked,” Herenstein said. He emphasized that USPS cannot refuse to deliver mail ballots under the blocked requirements and that voters can continue to rely on existing mail voting procedures. Herenstein also cautioned that the underlying litigation is not finished, saying the coalition will continue seeking a permanent injunction against the rule.

A System Election Officials Called “Impossible”

John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, described the timing and scale of the USPS proposal as particularly troubling. “Weeks before a national election, the Postal Service tried to make itself the gatekeeper of every ballot in the country,” Cusick said. According to Cusick, the requirements arrived fewer than 70 days before Election Day, after many local election offices had already designed, ordered or printed their mail ballot envelopes. With thousands of election jurisdictions across the United States operating under different state laws and procedures, changing systems so close to an election would have presented major logistical problems. Cusick said the word he repeatedly heard from election administrators and community organizations was “impossible.” He argued that the proposed system risked stopping legitimate ballots because of technical problems rather than preventing any demonstrated problem with mail voting.

A Victory for Voters and Election Officials

Justin Lam, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, characterized the Supreme Court action as “a victory for voters and for election officials.” He said the decision rejected an attempt to introduce sweeping new requirements at a time when election administration was already underway. Lam urged Americans not to allow uncertainty surrounding the litigation to discourage them from participating. “You should make a plan to vote, and you should vote early if you can,” he said. Whether voters choose early in-person voting, an authorized drop box or voting by mail, Lam stressed the importance of understanding state requirements and acting early enough to address problems before Election Day.

Mail Voting Matters to Vulnerable Communities

Niyati Shah, senior director of litigation at Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, focused on communities for whom mail voting can be particularly important. Shah noted that elderly voters, people with disabilities, residents of rural communities, students living away from home and people with language access needs often depend heavily on alternatives to traditional Election Day voting. Asian American voters also use mail voting at particularly high rates. For voters in mixed-status immigrant families, Shah said voting by mail can allow citizens to participate “on your own terms, in your own time.” She also addressed anxiety and misinformation surrounding elections. “There is a lot of confusion and fear,” Shah said, warning voters against allowing that uncertainty to prevent them from exercising their rights. “It’s important to not give in to that, because then they win.”

What Voters Should Do Now

For voters in Texas, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and communities nationwide, the immediate message from the ACoM briefing was straightforward: the Supreme Court ruling did not eliminate mail voting, and the blocked USPS requirements cannot currently be used to prevent otherwise lawful ballots from being delivered. Voters should confirm their registration, understand their state’s eligibility and deadline requirements, request ballots early where applicable, and track returned ballots when tracking is available. Shah also reminded reporters that mail voting has existed in the United States since the Civil War, underscoring that it is not a new election practice.

The Sept. 22 briefing demonstrated why the court battle reaches far beyond technical questions about postal procedures. At its center is whether eligible citizens can participate in an election without unnecessary barriers, confusion or fear. As the 2026 midterms approach, the message from Shah, Cusick, Lam and Herenstein was consistent: voters should stay informed, make a voting plan and exercise their right to participate.