Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?

News

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?
Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social, claiming he was going to “lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots,” adding that he would sign an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms. However, Trump has yet to sign such an order.


This raises the question if Trump’s threat is serious or if he is merely baiting political opponents – especially when a quick Google search will tell anyone that the president doesn’t have the authority to implement such a policy.

But critics have spoken out.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has recently adopted the strategy of mocking the president by copying his social media style, said Trump’s call to ban mail-in ballots “reeks of desperation,” and called it another way Trump wants “to cook the results.”

If a nationwide ban did happen, California would be one of the hardest hit states as it allows no-excuse absentee voting. This means all registered voters are eligible to vote by mail. In fact, most Californians do.

Of the more than 16 million ballots cast in California last year, a little over 13 million were sent by mail.

However, putting the political theater aside – a nationwide ban on mail-in ballots would be extremely difficult because each state makes its own rules and to change anything about congressional elections would take more than a presidential proclamation.

It would take an act of Congress.

Who Controls the Rules on Mail-In Ballots?

The Constitution does not give the president any authority to make or change election law. The role of the Executive Branch is to enforce existing laws passed by Congress, and the purpose of an executive order is to direct members of the branch on how to enforce current law.

Congress has the authority under the Constitution to adopt election rules that pertain to federal elections only, but while the U.S. House has advanced more demanding voter ID requirements at the federal level under the SAVE Act, it hasn’t touched mail-in voting.

At least, not yet.

By design, the U.S. has a highly decentralized election system: states control the rules for how elections are administered, from registration to ballot counting. This is why states can have different primary election systems, voter ID requirements, and windows for early voting.

Some states conduct most of their elections entirely by mail while some limit who is eligible to even request a mail-in or absentee ballot. Half of states have a citizen-initiative process, allowing for voters to engage in direct democracy, and half don’t.

The point is elections vary considerably depending on where someone lives in the U.S. So, when Trump says states are “merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government” and must do what the president tells them – this isn’t true (particularly in this case).

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton described the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to find a “happy combination” between a structured federal Republic with a purer form of democracy for every state. (See Federalist No. 10)

So as critics of the president raise alarm bells over what they call a threat to election integrity – there isn’t actually much Trump can do on his own and they know that even as they try to escalate the rhetoric by claiming the “end of democracy as we know it.”

The Landscape of Absentee and Mail-in Voting Across States

As mentioned, each state has its own rules about mail-in and absentee voting. Five states – Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Washington – hold elections almost entirely by mail, and these states tend to have the highest voter turnouts each election cycle.

Additionally, California, Nevada, and Vermont allow all elections to be conducted by mail, but don’t require it and make it easy for citizens to vote by mail. Right now, 36 states plus DC allow no-excuse absentee voting – meaning voters don’t have to provide justification to vote by mail.

This includes many Republican-controlled states like Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, and states that get a lot of media attention each election like Georgia and North Carolina. In Ohio, for example, 1.1 million voters cast a ballot by mail in 2024.

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, about 30% of all ballots in 2024 were cast by mail, and while there isn’t a complete party breakdown on how mail-in voters affiliated politically, Pew Research recently found 58% of voters support no-excuse mail-in voting.

The survey didn’t break it down further to see how support for mail-in ballots changed if states required citizens to justify a need for them, whether because of age, physical disability, or geographical barriers that make it hard to get to a polling location on time.

The issue presented by the president, his opposition, the press, and even the pollsters is "all or nothing," instead of a comprehensive examination of the issue.

The Stakes Are Not as High as Americans Are Expected to Believe

Trump claims mail-in ballots lead to massive voter fraud. His opponents claim an executive order to ban mail-in ballots will “cook the results.” What if both sides are wrong?

In a media and political environment that expects people to pick a side between Trump and his Democratic opposition, there is no room for nuance.

And if the individual picks the wrong side, they are braindead, evil, side with fascism, or want to cheat in elections. (The accusations fall from both sides.)

The reality is, there is an opportunity to have a comprehensive national conversation about the way we cast ballots in the U.S.

For example, when Trump says mail-in ballots lead to massive voter fraud there is no hard evidence to support the claim. IVN has featured analyses that dive into the mechanisms in place in states like Colorado to protect against voter fraud in mail-in elections.

But the absence of fraud does not mean there aren’t legitimate concerns that abuse can take place when it comes to things like ballot harvesting, which occurs when individuals or groups collect and turn in ballots on people’s behalf.

In 2022, 4 people pleaded guilty in North Carolina to misdemeanors for their roles in absentee ballot fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections, which resulted in an investigation and a do-over election – fraud that stemmed from ballot harvesting, which is illegal in the state.

AP reports:

Some of the workers said they were directed to collect blank or incomplete ballots, forge signatures on them and even fill in votes for local candidates. It is generally against the law in North Carolina for anyone other than the voter or a family member to handle someone’s completed ballot.”

It is understandable why people would be concerned about political operatives intentionally mishandling or manipulating other people’s ballots for their own self-interests or gains. There are several states that restrict who is allowed to return a person’s ballot.

But in California – state law allows individuals and groups not related or even associated with a voter to collect their ballots. The use of ballot harvesting in the state has drawn national attention, and anyone can collect a voter’s ballot under the law as long as:

  • They do not receive compensation for the amount of ballots collected;
  • Sign the ballot envelope and state their relationship to the voter; and
  • Return ballots collected in-person or put them in the mail no later than 3 days from the date the ballots were received.

Notably, a ballot won’t be disqualified if it is returned after the 3-day deadline or if the collector doesn’t sign it as long as it is returned by election day. So, these requirements are essentially pointless.

Ballot drop boxes were set up in 2020 by the California GOP, and despite stirring controversy – the state’s Democratic leaders said it was perfectly legal. In fact, legal analysts said under the law someone could stand on the street corner and collect ballots.

While the party eventually removed the drop boxes, President Trump encouraged their continued use.

There is no evidence of widespread abuse or fraud in California elections. However, the fraud committed in North Carolina, where ballot harvesting is illegal, is case-in-point that the potential for mischief and misconduct exists.

These deeper conversations fall by the wayside when voters are expected to look at the issue as “Trump is right about everything” or “Trump is a would-be fascist that is going to blow up democracy.”

Understanding how difficult it would be to implement a ban on mail-in voting across the U.S. and looking at how popular mail-in ballots are (even Trump has cast his ballots via mail), it’s quite possible the president simply wants to bait his political opponents.

And his opponents seem all too eager to take it – giving both sides an excuse to escalate the rhetoric to infinitely high stakes that don’t actually exist but deepen the partisan divide and keep people in a state of panic.

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait? was originally published by Independent Voter News and is republished with permission.

Shawn Griffiths Is An Election Reform Expert And National Editor Of IVN.us.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less