Future of proposed mail-in-ballot changes remains unclear

By Caroline Grinder, legislative advocate (federal liaison)

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on proposed changes to mail-in ballots that could have major implications for elections in California. However, it’s unclear if the changes can be implemented before the November election.

Cal Cities provided feedback on parts of the proposed changes over the summer as part of a rulemaking process. While counties are primarily responsible for elections, cities play a key role in voter outreach, public education, and logistical support. This strong partnership is critical to the security and success of the state’s election system, where nearly 90% of ballots cast in the last statewide election were by mail.

How did we get here?

In March, the President issued an executive order to "ensure citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections" conducted by mail and directed the U.S. Postal Service to initiate a rulemaking. The Postal Service subsequently released a proposed rule in June that outlined new preparation and data reporting requirements for mail-in and absentee ballots.

Immediately after the executive order was issued, California and over 20 other states sued to block the vote-by-mail changes. The group argued that the changes could upend their planning for the November midterm elections and infringe on their authority to administer elections.

A federal judge agreed with the states and temporarily blocked the federal government from implementing key parts of the order in those states before the midterm elections. In a different case challenging the order, that same judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that prevented the federal government from implementing the challenged provisions pending further litigation.  

Cal Cities submitted comments on the proposed rule in July, outlining several implementation concerns. The letter urged the Postal Service to reconsider the proposal and work with state and local governments to ensure any new requirements are feasible, aligned with existing systems, and supported with adequate resources and clear guidance. Along with Cal Cities’ letter, the Postal Service received over 200,000 public comments on the proposed rule.

The agency ultimately finalized the new rule with an effective date of Aug. 21, 2026. However, because court injunctions were in place, the Postal Service decided not to implement the rule for the 2026 election until the government obtained relief from those injunctions.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that key provisions of the executive order may take effect for the upcoming November election. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower court’s injunction in the states’ lawsuit should be paused while the litigation continues.  

The Supreme Court found that the states lacked standing to challenge the executive order but did not rule on the legality of the order itself. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal judge lifted the nationwide injunction.

What’s next?

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not mean the executive order can move forward as originally envisioned. Days after the ruling, California and 23 other states filed another federal lawsuit seeking an immediate halt to the new rules while the litigation continues. The plaintiffs argue that the rule unlawfully interferes with their authority to administer elections and exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

In response, the lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Postal Service from implementing key parts of the rule for the November election. The federal government has challenged that order. It remains unclear if the rule will take effect before the November election.

California counties will begin mailing ballots by Oct. 5.