USPS absentee ballot rules threaten the right to vote

July 2, 2026

Director
Product Classification
U.S. Postal Service
c/o Dale Kennedy
475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Rm. 4446
Washington, DC 20260-5015

Submitted electronically via PCFederalRegister@usps.gov

Re:          Proposed Rule: Ballot Mail for Federal Elections

Dear Mr. Kennedy,

Law Forward, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing principles of democracy in Wisconsin, writes in objection to the proposed rule change allowing the United States Postal Service (USPS) to obtain lists of state absentee voters, dictate the form of state absentee ballot envelopes, and refuse to deliver ballots that do not comply with USPS regulations.¹ The proposed rule was published by directive of an overreaching and illegal executive order; by extension, it too violates federal law and should be rejected. But the rule threatens something even more fundamental: the right to vote. As drafted, the proposed rule imposes additional, unnecessary requirements on absentee voting that will only further delay USPS’s already dilatory absentee ballot distribution process. Delay disenfranchises untold numbers of Wisconsin voters who, for any number of reasons, lawfully choose to vote by mail. The proposed rule must not be adopted.

USPS’s Proposed Rule Change Violates Federal Law

Federal law is clear. Congress and the states control election procedure; neither the President nor any part of the federal executive branch has a role. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4. cl. 1; art. II, § 1, cl. 2. And neither Congress nor any state has enacted any statute requiring or authorizing USPS to be involved in election procedure beyond delivering the mail. Yet, pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 14399, USPS now proposes to insert itself into the heart of election processes, demanding compliance with its chosen envelope design requirements and refusing to deliver any absentee ballots that either do not conform to the USPS design requirements or are addressed to any voters not on a list of absentee voters provided to USPS by each state. EO 14399, § 3. As recently declared by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the provisions giving USPS authority to determine absentee voter eligibility and to control mail-in voting run directly afoul of federal statutory and constitutional law.² In short, “USPS lacks statutory authorization to promulgate any binding regulations on mail-in voting.”³ (Wisconsin is one of twenty-three Plaintiff states in that case and Law Forward filed an amicus brief on behalf of Wisconsin voters and organizations committed to voting rights.) Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded just yesterday that the proposed rule violates a settlement agreement between the NAACP and USPS in which USPS agreed to prioritize the timely delivery of election mail, including mail-in ballots.⁴

Furthermore, to comply with the compressed timeline demanded by EO 14399, USPS has violated applicable federal rulemaking procedure. Specifically, USPS is required to submit a proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for an advisory opinion any time it wishes to make a “change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis.”⁵ Federal law gives the PRC 90 days to issue its advisory opinion.⁶ Here, USPS has not submitted the proposed rule to the PRC, nor does the timeline for rulemaking imposed by EO 14399 allow the necessary time. USPS was given until May 30, 2026 to publish the proposed rule and until July 29, 2026 to finalize the rule. EO 14399, § 3(b), (d).

Wisconsin Already Complies with Many of the Proposed Regulations, Rendering the Rule Unnecessary

Under current law, USPS publishes ballot mail preparation recommendations that include use of an “Election Mail Logo.”⁷ States may print the logo on their absentee ballot return envelopes to ensure postal employees can readily identify and expedite the processing and delivery of election mail.⁸ USPS’s recommended best practices for ballot envelope design also include automation compatibility and mailpiece design review.⁹ The proposed rule mandates that states adopt the envelope design recommendations and that USPS review and approve each state’s envelopes.¹⁰ Wisconsin has largely already adopted these recommendations. In 2023, for example, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) redesigned and adopted new absentee ballot envelopes and return certificates that include prominent display of the USPS Election Mail Logo.¹¹ And USPS was consulted as the new designs were developed.¹² It is simply not necessary to mandate what is already done. And it is improper to ignore what has been voluntarily and cooperatively done for the purpose of decreeing unilateral changes within an unworkable timeframe.

The Proposed Rule Creates More Problems than it Purports to Solve

As noted above, the proposed rule makes USPS review and approval of state-designed absentee ballot envelopes mandatory, but it does not specify any further details. Must USPS review and approve envelopes for every state before every election? What is the timeline for approval? What happens if USPS rejects a proposed ballot design? The rules are clear that USPS will not accept ballots that do not comply with mandatory design standards and that USPS “assumes no responsibility for any outbound ballot mailing until it is accepted into the mail,” that mail that does not comply with the design standards “will not be accepted,” and that USPS “is not responsible for service delays” when “the applicable preparation or entry standards are not met.”¹³ Thus, USPS seeks to insert itself into state and local election procedures, while also disclaiming any responsibility for additional delays caused by its involvement.

The proposed rule and the underlying executive order do not clarify how states in the midst of election cycles when USPS completes its rulemaking are to implement the new rule. Wisconsin’s 2026 partisan primary will be held on August 11, 2026—a mere 13 days after the July 29 rulemaking deadline. In accord with federal and state law, absentee ballots will have been distributed, and in-person absentee voting will have commenced, before USPS’s rulemaking is complete. Will the rules go into effect immediately? Or will they apply only to elections not already underway? Neither EO 14399 nor the proposed rule answers these questions.

USPS Delay Threatens Disenfranchisement

The proposed rule also threatens disenfranchisement by creating confusion and additional delay.

First, the duties to be shouldered by USPS are problematic. Notably, the agency is underfunded and overburdened.¹⁴ Implementing EO 14399 in light of this would significantly affect Wisconsin voters. Wisconsin election officials already routinely receive, after election day, USPS deliveries of absentee ballots mailed and postmarked before election day. Under Wisconsin law, absentee ballots received after election day are not counted.¹⁵ In April of this year, 269 absentee ballots cast by City of Milwaukee voters in Wisconsin’s spring election were received the day after election day and could not be counted.¹⁶ Wisconsin has only two major USPS sorting facilities, located in Milwaukee and Green Bay. Most mail in Wisconsin, even when sent from one address to another in the same municipality, is routed to Milwaukee or Green Bay, sorted, and then transmitted back to the local post office before delivery. A smaller portion of Wisconsin mail is sent to the Twin Cities in Minnesota for sorting and then returned to Wisconsin for delivery.¹⁷ All of this takes time and resources.

The proposed rule is likely to exacerbate this problem in Wisconsin. Under the proposed rule, the mandatory unique barcodes to be printed on absentee ballot envelopes can be read only by USPS locations with the necessary equipment. For Wisconsin voters, the only locations currently equipped to read such bar codes are in Milwaukee and Minneapolis, meaning that absentee ballots must be routed through those locations.¹⁸ Cutting out Green Bay as a processing facility would be especially problematic for rural voters whose ballots are already delayed under the current process. Mandating that their ballots be routed through even-more-distant postal facilities will, again, create only further delay.

Second, the rule expressly does not apply to absentee ballots distributed to eligible overseas voters under UOCAVA nor to absentee ballots distributed for federal primary elections.¹⁹ Presumably, the rule also does not apply to regularly held state and local-only elections (held in Wisconsin in February and April of each year²⁰) or to special elections for state and local offices but would apply to special elections for Congress. Different standards for different voters and different elections increases the risk of confusion, mistake, and delay.

Third, and as noted above, as a federal court decided just yesterday that the additional mail processing delay threatened by the proposed rule puts USPS out of compliance with a settlement agreement it signed with the NAACP regarding USPS practices for election mail. Pursuant to that agreement, the “parties stipulated that the Postal Service agreed ‘to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail.’”²¹ The Court explained that the settlement agreement “does not allow the Postal Service to put in place a policy of refusing to accept and deliver certain ballots,” which the proposed rule purports to do.

Mail-in ballots are a safe and valid mechanism for casting a ballot. Wisconsin has authorized absentee voting since the Civil War, when it sought to ensure soldiers fighting to preserve the Union would not be disenfranchised during their military service.²² USPS has long been a partner to Wisconsin in making sure that eligible voters can fully participate in Wisconsin elections. We treasure the right to vote and our historic role in helping pioneer absentee voting. USPS’s proposed rule threatens to disrupt this established system, thereby putting the fundamental right to vote at risk. This is simply unacceptable.

***

Law Forward opposes the changes articulated in the proposed rule regarding Ballot Mail for Federal Elections and requests that USPS not proceed with adopting the rule.

Sincerely,

LAW FORWARD

Jeffrey A. Mandell
President and General Counsel  

Rachel E. Snyder
Policy Counsel

¹ Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 105, 32915 (June 2, 2026) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R. 111).

² State of California, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:26-cv-11581-IT, at 30-32 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026) (order granting injunction).

³ Id. at 31.

⁴ NAACP v. USPS, No. 20-cv-02295-EGS (D.D.C. July 1, 2026) (Memorandum Op. granting motion to enforce compliance with settlement agreement).

⁵ 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b).

⁶ 39 C.F.R. § 3020.102(a).

⁷ Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32916.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Id.

¹⁰ Id. at 32918.

¹¹ WEC, Minutes of the Meeting of Aug. 4, 2023 at 2, available at https://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/August%204%2C%202023%20Open%20Session%20Minutes%20APPROVED.pdf; see also, WEC, Open Session Materials – August 4, 2023 at 12-27, available at https://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Open%20Session%20Materials%20-%20August%204%202023.pdf.

¹² WEC, Open Session Materials – August 4, 2023 at 3, 7-8.

¹³ Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32918.

¹⁴ Hansi Lo Wang, The Postal Service may be out of cash in 2027 without Congress’ help, postmaster says, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (Mar. 17, 2026), available at https://www.npr.org/2026/03/17/nx-s1-5750419/usps-running-out-of-money-postal-service-david-steiner; Richelle Wilson, Wisconsin village faces mail delivery delays amid financial crisis for US Postal Service, WIS. PUBLIC RADIO (Apr. 16, 2026), available at https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-village-brown-deer-usps-postal-service-crisis.

¹⁵ Wis. Stat. § 6.87(6).

¹⁶ Mariana La Roche, Milwaukee Election Commission reports late delivery of absentee ballots, WISN 12 (Apr. 9, 2026), available at https://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-election-commission-reports-late-delivery-of-absentee-ballots/70977867.

¹⁷ 61 Regions with RPDCs, RESEARCH HUB, available at https://www.randymajors.org/customgmap?x=-89.4641473&y=44.2557563&cx=-98.2092645&cy=37.5562624&zoom=5&mapbuilder=true&areatype=zips&sheetid=1pN41Qgq4thAjpFnqX7j74TNSVE1bcQDbABvb8Lx0LIs&markertype=sheet&markers=1eW0lrO6425MJDEvu4-LrKOGWjp5jSa6831aiSx0wRro&title=61+Regions+with+RPDCs&hidelegend=hide (last visited July 2, 2026).

¹⁸ Molly Beck, Proposed Postal Service rule could risk ballot delivery in Wisconsin, Milwaukee J. Sentinel (June 11, 2026), available at https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/11/ballot-delivery-at-risk-if-wisconsin-doesnt-hand-over-voter-info/90501373007/.

¹⁹ Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. at 32917.

²⁰ Wis. Stat. §§ 5.05(21)-(22).

²¹ NAACP, No. 20-cv-02295-EGS at 3.

²² Russell Horton, Origins of Absentee Voting, Wis. Veterans Museum (Sept. 15, 2020), available at https://wisvetsmuseum.com/origins-of-absentee-voting/.