Oregon — Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield joined a new federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail ballots, describing the regulations as an effort by President Donald Trump to control who may vote.
The lawsuit raises substantive questions about federal authority, election administration, privacy and voting rights. However, Rayfield’s announcement presents the dispute in overtly partisan and definitive terms, calling the rule unlawful before a court has decided the new case and characterizing it as Trump “meddling” in Oregon elections.
“The Constitution is clear: no President has the authority to take over or interfere with any state’s elections,” Rayfield said. “We’re not going to let Donald Trump dictate who gets to vote, and we’re not going to let him put the Postal Service between Oregon voters and their ballots.”
The Postal Service maintains that it would not determine voter eligibility. Under the final rule, state officials would decide which voters receive mail ballots and submit their names and addresses through a federal ballot-mail portal.
The regulations would nevertheless give USPS a more substantial role in the process. States would have to enroll mail voters with the Postal Service, use approved envelope designs and assign unique barcodes to outbound and return ballot envelopes. Ballots that do not meet the federal requirements could be refused.
The rule does not abolish vote-by-mail or prohibit Oregon from conducting elections through the mail. A separate federal injunction also currently prevents USPS from implementing the requirements for the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.
That distinction was absent from Rayfield’s statement, which warned that Trump was using the Postal Service “to decide who gets a ballot—and who doesn’t.”
Become a Paid Subscriber for Exclusive Content Access and Support Independent News
Lawsuit follows Supreme Court ruling
The new complaint was filed two days after the Supreme Court stayed an earlier injunction obtained by the states.
In that 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court did not uphold the legality or constitutionality of Trump’s executive order. It ruled that the states’ original challenge was premature because it targeted an executive directive and proposed agency action before USPS had issued a final rule.
The majority expressly left open a later lawsuit against an implemented regulation.
“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule,” the court wrote.
USPS issued its 95-page final rule on August 21, giving the states a concrete agency action to challenge. Wednesday’s lawsuit is a direct response to the procedural path identified by the Supreme Court.
The new complaint alleges that the Postal Service exceeded its statutory authority, intruded on state control of elections, failed to comply with federal rulemaking requirements and violated the Privacy Act and federal voting-rights laws. It asks the court to invalidate the rule and issue a temporary restraining order.
Those remain allegations. No court has yet ruled on the merits of the new complaint.
Rayfield’s constitutional framing is broader than settled law
Rayfield’s claim that “no President has the authority to take over or interfere with any state’s elections” reflects the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the dispute, not a complete description of federal election authority.
States have primary responsibility for running elections, but that authority is not exclusive. The Constitution’s Elections Clause permits Congress to regulate congressional elections or alter rules established by states. The executive branch may also enforce election laws enacted by Congress.
The central legal question is narrower: whether the president and Postal Service have existing constitutional and statutory authority to establish these particular requirements without new legislation from Congress.
Trump’s March 31 executive order directed USPS to develop national standards intended, according to the administration, to improve ballot tracking, prevent fraud and protect confidence in federal elections. The Postal Service says states would retain control over voter eligibility, voter registration and ballot counting.
The Democratic-led states argue the practical effect would be federal control over whether otherwise valid ballots move through the mail.
Existing order blocks implementation
The status of the rule is also more complicated than either side’s political messaging suggests.
Talwani found that USPS violated her injunction by completing the rulemaking, but she imposed no additional remedy. She said the existing injunction already leaves the final rule with no force or effect for federal elections on or before November 3, 2026. The rule itself states that USPS will not implement the requirements for the 2026 election unless the government obtains relief from the remaining injunction.
As of August 26, Oregon election officials therefore are not required to redesign ballot envelopes or enroll voters with USPS for the November election, although that could change if the injunction is stayed or lifted.
Oregon’s vote-by-mail system
Oregon voters approved statewide vote-by-mail in 1998, and the state began conducting primary and general elections by mail in 2000. The Legislature expanded the system to all elections in 2007.
Rayfield argued that the federal requirements would force Oregon to redesign ballot envelopes, develop data-sharing systems, train election workers and educate voters shortly before the election. The states also contend that mistakes or incomplete lists could prevent eligible voters from receiving or returning ballots.
“Oregonians have trusted vote-by-mail for more than 25 years because it works,” Rayfield said. “It’s secure, it’s convenient, and it lets every eligible voter make their voice heard.”
Rayfield joined attorneys general from 22 other states and the District of Columbia, along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. All participating state attorneys general are Democrats, giving the lawsuit an unmistakable partisan alignment even as it presents legal questions that courts will have to evaluate independently.
The case does not presently threaten the existence of Oregon vote-by-mail. It concerns whether USPS may condition its handling of federal-election ballots on compliance with national mailing, barcode and voter-list requirements.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
