Republican election officials urge Supreme Court to block President Donald Trump’s mail-in ballot rule from taking effect before the midterms

A coalition of Republican election officials has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent President Donald Trump‘s mail-ballot rule from taking effect before the midterm elections, warning that implementing the changes now could cause confusion, delays and widespread disenfranchisement.

The filing carries particular weight because it comes from Republican officials rather than Democratic officials or voting-rights organizations. Its significance grew when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to pause a lower-court injunction blocking the rule, finding that the government had not shown a likelihood of success and citing the trial court’s conclusion that states may be unable to comply before Election Day.

Republicans cite election risks

The brief was signed by 38 current and former election officials from 10 states, including Republican Secretaries of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, Scott Schwab of Kansas, Michael Adams of Kentucky, David Scanlan of New Hampshire, Michael Howe of North Dakota and Monae Johnson of South Dakota, as well as Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson.

The officials said they were not taking a position on whether the rule is lawful or wise, only that it cannot realistically be implemented before the midterms.

“Attempting to implement the Rule now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays and confusion for both voters and election officials,” the brief states.

The filing notes that absentee ballots have already begun going out in some states and that federal law requires states to send ballots to military and overseas voters. Election administrators would also need to comply with new envelope requirements, use a federal ballot portal that officials say has not been fully tested and conduct additional verification procedures.

The officials cited the Purcell doctrine, a Supreme Court principle that generally discourages courts from making major changes to election rules close to an election because of the risk of voter confusion and administrative disruption.

“Election administrators deserve a clear roadmap to successfully deliver a free, fair and fast election. We already have that in Georgia,” Raffensperger spokesman Robert Sinners told Newsweek. “To serve their communities effectively, they need certainty and last-minute changes undermine that. The Purcell doctrine is clear on this.”

Raffensperger is among the most prominent signatories because of his long-running disputes with Trump over election administration. During the 2020 election, Trump pressured him by phone to “find 11,780 votes” four days before the January 6, 2021, certification of the presidential results.

Appeals court echoes concerns

The First Circuit’s ruling echoed many of the concerns raised in the Republican officials’ brief.

The panel — Judges Seth Aframe, Gustavo Gelpí Jr. and Julie Rikelman, all appointed by former President Joe Biden — wrote that there was “no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud” tied to the midterms. The judges concluded that allowing the rule to take effect “will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal, if any, gains in combating voter fraud.”

The panel said states would need U.S. Postal Service approval for redesigned ballot envelopes, would have to replace envelopes already ordered, would need systems capable of generating voter-specific barcodes and would have to upload information to a USPS portal that the court said remains “still not operational.”

The judges also cited the trial court’s conclusion that it would be “impossible for States to comply with the Final Rule’s detailed requirements in the time remaining before the November 3 election.”

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts, an Obama appointee, issued the underlying injunction, ruling that the USPS rule unlawfully usurped states’ constitutional authority over their elections and imposed an “impossible” compliance timeline.

“Through the Final Rule, the USPS is refusing to send mail ballots to eligible voters unless States or local election officials submit their mail ballot envelopes and return envelopes and receive advance approval from the USPS without regard to impending deadlines for the election,” she wrote.

The Republican officials asked the justices to ensure the November election proceeds under “the rules that were in place when its administration began.” They argued that questions about the rule’s ultimate legality can be resolved before the 2028 election rather than during the current one.

Newsweek reached out to the White House and attorney Brent Herrin, counsel for the election officials, for comment.