Vermont officials reiterated on Tuesday that the state’s voting system is safe and secure after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the federal government’s plan to add new requirements for mail-in ballots ahead of the November 3 election.
Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas also expressed relief over the ruling, calling it “a win for all voters and for democracy.” The state remains on track to mail ballots to all eligible registered voters by October 1, she said, and will not submit its mailing list to the U.S. Postal Service for screening, which was proposed as part of the federal rule.
“Vermonters can be assured that they will get their ballots via mail and can enjoy the convenience of voting securely from home,” Copeland Hanzas said in a statement.
Vermont was one of 25 states that sued to block the new rules, which were instituted by President Donald Trump in March as part of an executive order ostensibly intended to prevent fraud in the general election.
The group of attorneys general won a preliminary injunction preventing the postal rule from moving forward, and the Supreme Court on Monday let that injunction stand.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that allowing new rules so close to the midterm elections “would be arbitrary and capricious,” adding that local officials wouldn’t have time to implement the changes.
“Fair and free elections are a cornerstone to democracy,” Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said in a statement. “I am grateful that the Supreme Court blocked the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to undermine Americans’ access to the ballot.”
U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) and U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) also applauded the ruling and reiterated that the voting system is safe and secure.
While President Trump sought to portray the changes as a way to clamp down on voter fraud, Copeland Hanzas framed it instead as an attempt “to sow doubt and confusion.”
Vermont law makes it abundantly clear that town clerks and Boards of Civil Authority keep and update voter rolls, not the federal government. The new federal rule would have required the state to upload its voter mailing list to the Postal Service, which would then decide whether to mail ballots out to those addresses, Copeland Hanzas said.
“This is the federal government inserting itself between Vermonters and our ballots for no justifiable reason,” she told Seven Days on Tuesday.
There is reason to believe the federal government could take other measures between now and the election, so voters should remain vigilant, Copeland Hanzas said.
“We don’t know what further shenanigans this administration has in order to disrupt the election,” she said.
Those mailing ballots back to their municipal clerks should do so earlier than past years, she said, probably by mid-October at the latest. Just to be safe, Copeland Hanzas said, those who are able should consider putting ballots directly in municipal drop-boxes, at clerk’s offices or polling places.
While postal workers themselves are “doing a heroic job under really high-pressure circumstances,” she noted that they have been “intentionally under-resourced” and asked to do “a bunch of unprecedented and unusual things.”
“We don’t know the extent to which this administration might still try to do something to interfere with election mail,” Copeland Hanzas said.
The Postal Service’s demand for voter addresses came after the Department of Justice asked for states to turn over their entire voter rolls, which included a host of personal information, including social security numbers.
Copeland Hanzas refused that request and Clark has sued to block it in federal court. A decision is pending.
The latest rule was concerning for several reasons. It would have allowed the Postal Service to be the final arbiter of who gets a ballot, creating an “end run” around state law, Copeland Hanzas said. And the state would have had no assurance about how other branches of the federal government would use the list, she said.
Finally, the rule required barcodes on return envelopes. The state has already printed these envelopes without barcodes, so reprinting them “at this stage of the game would have been a practical impossibility,” she said.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
