LDF President and Director Counsel joins the Reid Out to discuss protecting the USPS, mail-in voting and the 2020 election.
Shortly after Louis DeJoy was appointed Postmaster General, USPS imposed changes in its mail delivery policies without going through the procedures required by federal law designed to ensure an opportunity for accountability and public comment. These changes led to widespread delays in mail delivery across much of the nation at the very moment when timely mail delivery mattered most: a global pandemic where people rely on the mail for everything from prescription drugs to voting (client testimony 1; client testimony 2).
Earl Graham Declaration, September 15 2020
The Court granted a preliminary injunction in our favor in October, and it and other courts entered similar injunctions in several other cases, including cases filed by states. The USPS did not immediately comply, however, and substantial mail delays have persisted. As a result, we filed a motion to enforce the Court’s prior injunction in late October. This has led to enforcement proceedings where the Court has entered orders requiring USPS to implement measures to ensure that ballots are delivered in a timely manner, and to provide the court with data about the status of its efforts.
For example, shortly before Election Day, the Court ordered USPS to use the Express Mail network to expedite ballots out of local service area, and to clear and process all ballots with a local destination on the same day or no later than the next morning.
On November 4, the day mail-in ballots were due to elections offices in Texas, the Court ordered USPS to take additional steps to ensure ballots sent on Election Day or earlier were not left behind in Texas facilities. In response, USPS identified and delivered 815 ballots in the state.
Since November 4, we have focused on delivery of ballots in states that have upcoming deadlines for receiving ballots postmarked by Election Day, such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The Court has required twice daily sweeps for ballots in mail processing facilities in those states, with reports to be filed in the court documenting the results.
LDF Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, September 1 2020
The data maintained and reported by USPS has limitations and must be interpreted with caution. It is primarily useful in helping identify USPS districts that have had slower delivery times, which led LDF to request additional measures in those districts to ensure the timely delivery of ballots.
It is important to note what we learned from USPS on November 5 as it relates to the more than 100,000 ballots delivered to elections officials the previous day. The vast majority of those ballots were delivered in a timely manner, and in states where they can still be counted because of extended receipt deadlines.
UPDATE: On November 6, the Court ordered plant and district managers jointly overseeing processing facilities in Alaska, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, and West Virginia to coordinate with all local Boards of Elections to deliver all ballots before the relevant extended state ballot receipt deadline.
Like poll workers and vote counters, the rank and file postal workers have gone all out throughout this process to ensure the functioning of our democracy. The USPS staff have taken the Court’s orders and this litigation seriously. They are not responsible for ordering the changes that created these delays. Rather, the directives that have caused the delays and other problems that LDF is challenging were made by USPS leadership.
LDF is fighting for the delivery of every ballot. People who voted by mail – to protect themselves from COVID-19 exposure in particular – deserve to know their ballot was delivered. It is a public trust that must not be betrayed.
LDF has participated in daily court hearings on this matter leading up to, during, and following Election Day, and is continuing to litigate this case at present. This blog will be updated daily with information concerning case developments. For media inquiries, please contact email@example.com.