The Supreme Court’s Referee Conundrum: Trump’s End Run on Voting Rights

The Trump administration is attempting a last-ditch maneuver to alter mail-in voting rules just weeks before the midterm elections. This move would require the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters nationwide, with the Postal Service refusing mail ballots from anyone whose name isn’t on these rolls.

A federal judge has blocked this plan in 23 states and Washington D.C., warning that implementing it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement. Yet the administration is trying to push the Supreme Court into overruling this judgment, arguing that there’s not enough time left before November for the ordinary appeals process.

The executive order’s implementation is also shrouded in uncertainty. The relevant agencies haven’t finished deciding how to implement the order, but if that’s true, why is the administration asking the Supreme Court to grant an emergency stay? This inconsistency highlights the administration’s conflicting arguments: either there’s no rush, or time is critically short.

The Trump administration’s actions are a test of the Supreme Court’s commitment to its own doctrine. The Purcell principle, which guides lower courts in election law, has been invoked repeatedly over the years to block last-minute changes to voting rules. However, this case marks the first time an executive branch has tried to impose sweeping new restrictions while simultaneously arguing that the courts should stay out of it.

If the Trump administration succeeds in changing these rules, millions of eligible citizens could be disenfranchised. But beyond that, there’s a deeper question at stake: can the Supreme Court allow its own doctrine to be subverted like this? Or will it stand up for the principle of stability and predictability in election law?

The court’s decision will not only determine the fate of one executive order but also speak volumes about whether the nation’s highest tribunal still has credibility on matters of election integrity. If referees are allowed to move the goalposts themselves, simply by asking nicely enough, what’s left of the game?