The morning brings news of whistleblower allegations concerning the US Postal Service and its response to President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting, key provisions of which are currently blocked by a temporary restraining order as federal courts consider its validity. According to the New York Times’s report, an official with the USPS alleges that the service has moved forward anyway with a “risky and haphazard” implementation of the order that “could lead to a ‘catastrophic failure’ in the mail ballot system ahead of this year’s midterm elections.… The report said that the agency had planned to complete the new digital system overseeing mail ballots by Sept. 1. ‘Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all,’ the official said in the report.”

Stephen Richer, my colleague at Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and former recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, wrote the following: 

The USPS has been, and remains, a critical partner in successful elections. Any widespread USPS disruption would cripple election administration in many states, including my home state, Arizona. I’m hopeful that the USPS will address the whistleblower’s allegations, reassure its partners in election administration, and reassure the American voters. I know they have many excellent leaders and staff who understand the importance of their election role.

And this is what I wrote: 

The most concerning allegation is that the USPS is considering a batch rejection protocol under which thousands of valid ballots [sent by states] could be set aside undelivered to qualified voters if even one in the batch fails to match a compiled list that itself will almost certainly harbor inaccuracies. The danger now is that an administration led by avowed opponents of mail voting will find a means to suppress a great deal of it, with ordinary voters not even knowing what is happening. What’s more, mail ballot rejections for lateness rose markedly in many states during this primary season, suggesting a slowing of USPS delivery speed. It’s no surprise that civic groups and some states themselves have begun to route around damage, so to speak, by urging voters to use lock boxes, election office drop off, and other early voting methods not susceptible to unreliable handling or outright sabotage originating in Washington.

Yesterday the Times reported that the apparent slowdown in delivery of ballots this primary season, which has led to a jump in rejections for lateness, could trace to reasons unrelated to election and ballot issues as such: “the agency has curtailed its services in the face of budget shortfalls in recent years, leading to slower mail delivery across the country” and has “increased the delivery standards for first-class mail, from three days to five,” although ballot return for federal general elections, like the one coming up in November, is supposed to get prioritized treatment. 

And this from last week: “The president has conceded that combating fraud is not the only reason to target [mail-in voting]. In March, he told GOP lawmakers that passing a strict voter ID law cracking down on mail ballots, which Democrats now use more than Republicans, would ‘guarantee the midterms’ for his party.” 

All in all, I’m not surprised at the growing rumblings from states and civic groups about how voters who want to be sure their ballots are counted may need to route around USPS damage through such alternatives as drop boxes and election office drop-off—assuming they manage to obtain mail ballots in the first place—or by sending in mail votes well before Election Day, assuming their state tracks and communicates ballot arrival and offers options should sending prove futile.