Politics

1231 readers

469 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

172

Trump can't order Postal Service to put limits on mail ballot delivery, judge rules (www.scrippsnews.com)

submitted 1 week ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge blocked the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out its plan for President Donald Trump’s mail ballot executive order, finding that the proposal violated a settlement in a 2020 lawsuit against the agency.

Trump had directed USPS to only transmit ballots for states that submit to the agency lists of their mail-in voters and that meet other requirements for their mail voting programs. Previously, a judge in Boston had halted the Postal Service from implementing the order for two-dozen states that challenged it in court. But the new ruling from US District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who sits in Washington DC, blocks the directives nationwide.

If courts let Trump’s order from March 2026 stand, it would give the federal government an unprecedented role in elections — and could put even more voter data in the hands of Trump officials searching for supposed election fraud.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never really understood before why national elections were mostly a state by state matter but now I do.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When the US Constitution was written, it was replacing the Articles of Confederation. The Articles provided for a very weak federal government, leaving most of the power with the States. Those States considered themselves very independent from one another, essentially their own countries.

In order to get the Constitution ratified, with a stronger federal government, many powers still needed to be reserved to the States. Elections was a big one of those things, and so it is clearly defined in Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

LOL, thank you! I meant more that I didn't understand why that specific privilege (to administer national elections) was ever seen as important, since the president, for example, was being elected nationally. I also have the bias of a lot of history showing state's rights being used for, well, you already know. But now, having lived through the stolen election hysteria, I feel like I have a much more intuitive understanding of what State's Rights can also mean ._.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure, I didn't think I was answering exactly what you were asking. Still, the fact that elections being controlled by the States is more of a happy accident than something that was done to make elections stronger and safer.

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 1 points 1 week ago

It was a really great refresher anyway. I am actually pretty sure I haven't heard the Articles of Confederation mentioned at all since high school.