Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

U.S. Postal Service Failed to Properly Handle Some Ballots During This Year’s Primary Elections, Audit Finds

An inspector general’s audit found a lack of training for post office staff, deficiencies in how ballots were tracked and errors leading to delays. Experts say it raises questions ahead of the midterms.

News

Mail-in ballots sitting in trays.

Mail-in ballots sit in trays before being sorted at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters office in San Jose, California, on Oct. 13, 2020.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Some U.S. Postal Service facilities failed to properly handle ballots during this year’s primary elections, according to a new audit from the agency’s Office of Inspector General. Election experts say the findings call into question the agency’s ability to meet even greater demands for the November election that are under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The audit, which is dated Sept. 4 but has not been previously reported, found a lack of training for post office staff on how to properly and expeditiously handle mail ballots, deficiencies in how ballots were tracked and errors leading to delays, all of which risked ballots having incorrect postmarks or otherwise arriving late to election officials, which could lead to their rejection.


The identified failures increase “the risk that Election and Political Mail is not handled, documented, monitored, and reported in accordance with Postal Service policy,” the audit said, though it noted that “most facilities we visited generally adhered to Postal Service’s election-related policies and procedures” and that nearly 99% of ballots reached election officials in a timely manner.

“While instances of non-compliance were low relative to overall volume, the presence of similar procedural gaps across multiple facilities indicates a need for improved understanding and increased enforcement of Postal Service policies among its employees,” it said.

The findings come as the Supreme Court weighs whether to allow the Postal Service to move ahead with new rules that would allow the agency to regulate mail voting, under a March executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The order requires states to give USPS a list of all voters eligible to receive a ballot in the mail and requires USPS to use those lists to determine which ballots get sent to voters.

Top Postal Service employees, along with a whistleblower who filed a disclosure with U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have expressed concern that the new system stands to disenfranchise large swaths of eligible voters, both by its design and lack of testing, ProPublica reported last week.

Election experts told ProPublica the new audit findings should be considered by the Supreme Court, as they make even clearer what election officials already know.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former Justice Department civil rights lawyer, said the audit confirms that USPS has “a long way to go to meet its core obligations of delivering election mail in a timely manner.”

“The administration and USPS are simply incapable of successfully meeting vast and radical new responsibilities under the president’s executive order,” Becker said.

Postal workers, through the American Postal Workers Union, also said Wednesday in a brief filed with the Supreme Court that it is not practical to implement the rules, which pose a “significant risk of wide swaths of Americans not being able to vote by mail.”

Even if the Supreme Court allows the new rule to move forward, some state election officials say the requirements would be impossible to meet for the November election, with mail ballots starting to go out this month.

Chelsey Wininger, executive director of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said the audit shows the Postal Service “struggles to implement even basic changes to postal process consistently” and reinforces the organization’s opposition to any new rules this close to an election.

In a response included with the findings of the audit, the Postal Service wrote that “while we acknowledge that we can always reinforce and amplify our internal processes and procedures (and will continue to do so between now and November) — overall ballot mail performance is strong.” The agency acknowledged that there are some instances in which employees didn’t follow policies and procedures, but called other errors “isolated incidents,” such as when some New Jersey ballots were delivered to Tennessee before being sent back.

The Postal Service agreed with all recommendations on how to protect against future problems, except for one that suggested promptly notifying customers impacted by new regional transportation plans.

The Postal Service did not immediately respond to a request for further comment Wednesday evening.

The Postal Service typically goes to great lengths to handle election mail in an expedited and careful manner. And overall, it delivered in this year’s primaries: Completed ballots from voters to election officials were processed “on time” nearly 99% of the time during the primaries, up from about 98% in 2024, for the about 6.3 million ballots that the Postal Service was able to track, according to the report. The definition of “on time” is not provided in the report. It refers to how quickly the ballot was handled by the Postal Service, not whether the ballot reached the election officials on time.

But when observing election mail at 14 processing facilities and 73 delivery units across eight states, the auditors found significant flaws in the handling of mail ballots.

There were no election-related training materials posted at 22 of 73 delivery units, or about 30%. In some locations, local management and employees weren’t familiar with requirements on how to process election mail, the report said.

In 14 states and Washington, D.C., election officials count ballots only when they are postmarked by the Postal Service by Election Day, making the correct postmark crucial for understanding which ballots to count and which to reject.

But the audit found that in 10 of 82 facilities, or about 12%, management wasn’t aware of the proper way to postmark a ballot. Some thought ballots should be postmarked at that time they go out to election offices instead of earlier on when they reach a processing facility or retail counter.

Also, at five of nine mail processing facilities studied, retail clerks who were postmarking ballots by hand sometimes used stamps with inaccurate dates, according to the report. That included a facility in Pennsylvania on the state’s primary election day, which caused 56 ballots to be postmarked with the wrong date.

In 13 of 82 facilities, Postal Service workers didn’t complete proper procedures to make sure election mail had been sent out from the delivery units each day. In one instance at a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, processing plant, 108 ballots were grouped with other mail and had to be expedited to Pittsburgh on the morning of the election so they would count.


U.S. Postal Service Failed to Properly Handle Some Ballots During This Year’s Primary Elections, Audit Finds was originally published by ProPublica and is republished with permission


Read More

​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less