Donald Trump's only plan for helping his party win the midterm elections is to make it harder for Democrats to vote and easier for Republicans to cheat. Yet at every turn, his efforts have been rebuffed.

He issued an executive order in 2025 attempting to take control of voting, which was struck down. He tried to enact new federal voter suppression legislation and failed. The DOJ's efforts to sue states for sensitive voter data have resulted in a record of 0-23 in court.

Over the last few weeks, a new battle has emerged over mail-in voting. Trump is no stranger to attacking mail-in voting. Before the 2020 election, he and his allies tried to undermine it in public and in court. After he lost, his legal and rhetorical attacks escalated.

This spring, Trump issued an executive order that tried to cripple mail-in voting and obtain the voter data his administration desperately wants. Under this scheme, the U.S. Postal Service was directed to issue new rules forcing states to turn over voter lists of citizens eligible to receive mail-in ballots. States are also required to adopt a series of very specific ballot envelope requirements, including individual bar codes.

Since then, we have seen lower courts strike down these requirements, only to see them reinstated by the Supreme Court because the litigation was deemed premature. This week — when the cases are unquestionably ripe for adjudication — the lower courts again blocked their implementation. The DOJ has appealed, and we are nearly certain to be back on track to revisit the U.S. Supreme Court's shadow docket as early as next week.

I have made clear that I believe the executive order is unconstitutional. I believe the U.S. Postal Service's rule is both unconstitutional and illegal. I represent the Democratic Party in litigation to block this entire anti-voting effort.

But beyond the legal arguments, we are facing a perilous moment for democracy. States are not only in charge of elections in theory — they are also, in fact, running elections.

That means having to make specific decisions every day about things like spending money to print ballot envelopes. Typically, they do so with an eye toward voter enfranchisement and compliance with state law. Now, however, they must weigh those priorities against the possibility that the Postal Service rule would render the envelopes unmailable.

This is a nearly impossible position to put these officials in. If they get it wrong, they risk mass disenfranchisement and liability under state or federal law.

Some believe the risk that the Postal Service would ultimately refuse to deliver election mail is overblown. They suggest that people like me are alarmist. They are certain that, one way or another, voters will be able to cast their ballots with minimal inconvenience.