Faulty reasoning signals

• Confirmation Bias - 0%
• Anchoring Bias - 0.5% (6 hits)
• Availability Heuristic - 1.6% (20 hits)
• Representativeness Heuristic - 0%
• Hindsight Bias - 0%
• Overconfidence Bias - 3.3% (40 hits)
• Framing Effect - 3.9% (48 hits)
• Loss Aversion - 0%
• Status Quo Bias - 0%
• Sunk Cost Effect - 0%
• Optimism Bias - 1.3% (16 hits)
• Pessimism Bias - 0%

Article text

SCOTUS ruling not the end of the road for WA vote-by-mail process

This week, the U.S.

Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of a Mississippi law that allows that state to count ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive within five business days.

A decision the other way would have affected similar laws in more than half the states, including Washington.

To go over what happened and what may happen next, KUOW’s Kim Malcolm spoke to University of Washington law professor Danieli Evans.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Kim Malcolm: I know you followed the Supreme Court vote-by-mail case closely.

Did the outcome surprise you?

Danieli Evans: It did to a small extent, but not as much as it might have surprised other people.

What the court decided here is that the election occurs when the ballots are cast, so at the time that the voter fills out the ballot and puts it in the mail, not on the day that the state receives them.

What that means is that so long as you fill out your ballot and put it in the mail on the day that federal law requires the election to occur, the state process is consistent with federal law.

President Trump issued an executive order last March directing the United States Postal Service to pursue a plan to only send election ballots to voters in states that submit their voter rolls to the administration at least 60 days before any federal elections, which was an unprecedented move.

As of today, it's been blocked by a couple of federal courts.

The administration has said that it will appeal.

What stands out for you in that USPS case as far as Washington state is concerned?

The executive order, which was issued on March 31, 2026, requires several different executive agencies to take different measures related to the administration of elections.

It first directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of citizens from federal databases, including Social Security Administration records and immigration data, which it calls “confirmed citizens” lists, and transmit those lists to states.

It also requires the United States Postal Service to adopt rules that would create specific requirements for election mail design.

And it says that the United States Postal Service, after they receive the state-furnished lists of voters, has to provide a list to each state of individuals who are enrolled with USPS.

One important point here is that all states, including Washington, have their own procedures for compiling and updating and maintaining voter rolls.

Those are specified by state law and several existing federal statutes that govern state elections, such as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

The new requirements set forth in this executive order might conflict with or interfere with those existing processes.

We've seen more cases arrive at the Supreme Court through what's known as the “shadow docket,” a shortcut of sorts.

What are the chances this issue might end up before the Supreme Court before the elections this year?

I think it's feasible it ends up on the so-called “shadow docket.”

Here’s how that would work.

The District of Massachusetts enjoined the implementation of this executive order, meaning that the agencies are barred from putting it into effect.

Trump would appeal that, and if the First Circuit affirms that injunction, then it goes up to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to lift the injunction, to stay the injunction, to say that the lower court's order cannot go into effect while the rest of the litigation is pending.

It's possible they will do that.

One argument they raised in this case is that the plaintiff's challenge to the executive order is not ripe.

Ripeness is a concept in law that essentially requires a case to be ready for adjudication.

The Trump administration has said this case is not ready for adjudication because this executive order directs the agencies to do a bunch of things.

It directs the United States Postal Service to issue rules.

It directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list, and none of those things have happened yet.

So, it's not yet concretely apparent how the proposed rules and the prospective list will impact the states, and therefore the states lack a strong enough sense of how they'll be impacted by this and how this will be implemented to be able to litigate the case effectively.

The lower court, the District of Massachusetts court, rejected that argument when it comes to the November 2026 election because it said the states are in the process of preparing for that election now, and the prospect of this order and what they'll have to do to comply with this order is impacting them today in terms of how they have to plan for that election.

But it did accept that idea that it's not ripe with respect to after the 2026 election.

It sort of said for anything after the 2026 election, let's wait and see how this gets implemented, and we can address it once we see how it's going into effect.

It's possible that the Supreme Court could say something like, "You know, this case isn't ripe, and therefore we're staying the injunction, and we'll see how this plays out."

It's always possible.

I never want predict what they will do.

But it does seem like in terms of the arguments that the president lacks authority here.

That seems on pretty firm ground.

For a Washington voter who is used to the way we do elections here, vote by mail or dropping your ballot in a drop box, how confident should people be in our system right now and whether it is open to change in the future?

We're living in times where things are highly unpredictable, and so I'm always a little reluctant to make predictions.

Right now, under the Supreme Court ruling in Watson v.

Republican National Committee and the district court's order enjoining this executive order, our election system and process is secure.

Of course, if there are federal laws passed, the SAVE Act is one example, but there are several other federal laws that have been proposed or introduced that might restrict absentee voting or impose additional voter ID requirements, that would be very onerous.

Proof of citizenship requirements would also be very onerous.

These things could significantly alter Washington state's voting procedures.

But that would mainly depend on Congress passing a federal law.

The president's power to act and implement new restrictions on voting or new changes to voting policy is very limited, and courts have quickly pointed that out in striking down these executive orders that attempt to change the voting processes in states or impose requirements beyond those which states have chosen to adopt.

The Constitution does give the states the primary authority to set the time, place, and manner for elections unless Congress overrides that authority.

The key word there is Congress.

Congress has the power to override that authority, not the president.

The president doesn't have the power to act in this space unless Congress has delegated the president that power.

As of now, there are not statutes delegating the president the power to impose new voting requirements in elections.

Listen to the interview by clicking the play button above.