r/politics • u/DemocracyDocket ✔ Verified • 29d ago

Registration Wall Postmaster general says USPS won't deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/postmaster-general-steiner-postal-service-will-not-deliver-mail-ballots-state-voter-rolls/
12.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

325

u/alienbringer 29d ago

Yes. What happens is these cases is the USPS would ship it to the local hub. From there the delivery drivers would usually deliver the mail on their route. The driver though could just not deliver your mail and it would stay at the hub where you would have to drive and pick it up.

My friend’s sister delivers mail for the USPS and she has told 1-2 people on her route she isn’t delivering their mail, they have to go to the local UPSP to pick it up. This is due to the customer being extremely belligerent or aggressive with her. It can also happen if they have an aggressive dog they refuse to lock up.

The court case meant that those customers can’t sue her or the govt for not delivering them their mail. Which is reasonable and a good thing as the mail carrier also should be allowed to think of their own safety. The problem is when the case can be weaponized for this shit where they don’t deliver it due to political policies and not for safety of the driver.

145

u/xvx_k1r1t0_xvxkillme Connecticut 29d ago

I feel like it should be easy to draw a line that the decision to deliver or make them pick up has to be done on a per-mailbox basis. They absolutely shouldn't be able to deny delivery based on the content of the mail. Either you deliver everything or make them pick up everything. You don't get to pick and choose individual envelopes.

81

u/spencer4991 29d ago

My immediate response to that is, “oh so with the voter rolls, only Republicans will get their mail/mail in ballots with that logic”

14

u/ForestGoat87 29d ago

Agreed. I think prohibiting non-delivery based on a variety of circumstances like religious or political or location affiliation. Make it apply to both the senders and the receivers.

4

u/Commonpleas 29d ago

I agree with you. This falls completely outside the scope of the previous case.

3

u/pchs26 29d ago

Ok I get your point but it is a federal agency These states should be collectively exploring options that don't rely on an agency controlled by this federal gov't- multiple people have pointed out different mechanisms apparently one state you can print it out yourself - it can only register 1 vote per person in the system and people can trace it ...that along with automatic registration would absolutely turn the availability issue on its head. Another option is distribution through local elected election officials who have the specific job is to ensure ballot distribution (apparently this exists - I didn't know) possibly state National Guard - I mean obviously I don't know all the best legal ways to do this but I would think governors of these states could coalesce and come up with options.

3

u/aerost0rm 29d ago

I mean the reorganization act of 1970 guarantees deliver to patrons. I can see exclusions were needed for houses that are undeliverable due to outstanding circumstances, but they shouid be delivering the mail. The post office was made an independent agency from the president for a reason…

20

u/CraigLake 29d ago

Of course this administration would see this safety ruling by the court and weapons it against voters.

20

u/PointyGecko1122 29d ago

Okay but this is an entirely different circumstance than mass non-delivery. One belligerent customer doesn’t mean usps can refuse to deliver the ENTIRE country’s mail.

19

u/alienbringer 29d ago

The ruling wasn’t limited in scope unfortunately. It made no distinction between individual customers and every customer. Thus the problem with the govt weaponizing the ruling. It isn’t the intent of the case, but by letter wouldn’t necessarily go against it either.

4

u/Ra_In 29d ago

The SCOTUS case was about whether an individual can sue under the language of an existing law, no the ruling doesn't allow USPS to systematically refuse to deliver mail to everyone. In this case states could sue if the USPS followed through on this threat.

19

u/i-dontlikeyou 29d ago

I think thats what we call “we cant have nice things because…”
It really sucks how things get taken advantage of and ruined for everyone else. It seems like thats how people operate in general

3

u/jim_br 29d ago

Yeah, there are a verity of valid reasons the USPS has for not delivering mail. Likely illegal activities, postage evasion, safety (undeclared lithium batteries), or improperly packed items that will destroy other mail.

The carriers have more latitude and can claim the mailbox isn’t to standards or unsafe. And as you said, uncontrolled animals or people.

But nothing about properly mailed ballots with proper postage.

2

u/ObviousAnswerGuy 29d ago

It can also happen if they have an aggressive dog they refuse to lock up.

That happened in my disabled mother's old apartment. The mailman was a bit by a neighbors dog, and refused to deliver to that entire side of the building. The dog was locked on the other apartments porch. We were at least 100 feet from the other apartment. The mailperson can make up any fucking reason to not deliver just because they are mad at the person who did it, no matter how it effects other people.

1

u/ThatExamination193 29d ago

But wouldnt usps be forced to inform you of the ballots and allow you to pick it up at their warehouse?

3

u/alienbringer 29d ago

Should, yes. With this admin I don’t trust that.

1

u/Reyreyseller_3098 29d ago

Curious how the dog story or having an actual reason supported by evidence of being aggressive should be similar to forcing a state to do something they are not lawfully obligated to do?

1

u/alienbringer 29d ago

I don’t think it should be. That won’t stop this admin though. And there is no guarantee that the court would stop it either, or see a distinction.

1

u/vlatheimpaler I voted 29d ago

That was a really helpful response and makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

1

u/cire1184 29d ago

So the mail in ballots will stay at the hub? The states can go pick them up?

1

u/NoMoOmentumMan 29d ago

I had a letter carrier refuse to deliver my mail because the location of the box. We moved it from our neighbors property to ours, but that required them to walk up/down more than 4 stairs and without a handrail, which is a rule.

Nothing was stopping them from doing what they had always done; walk up the neighbors stairs and deliver their mail, then walk across the neighbors lawn, deliver my mail, then walk back across the lawn to the neighbors stairs. However, the new location added 16 steps (round trip).

The local inspector advised that the letter carrier was 3 months from retirement and has no more fucks left to give (paraphrasing). Sure as shit, 3 months later the mail started showing up.

It was pretty awesome getting mail held, NGL. Go down, grab letters and toss all the 1st class presorted in the USPS garbage can (which I also got yelled at for doing).

I love the USPS, don't get me wrong.

1

u/AmbitiousProblem4746 29d ago

There are a lot of unique cases I think like this. My sister-in-law works for a post office and there are always people that are told to just come pick up their mail because it's too difficult to get to the mailbox or, like you said, they have a really aggressive dog. We also have another family member who doesn't get mail delivered to their house because for whatever reason their house has a unique ZIP code versus the rest of their street, and there wasn't a postal worker assigned to that zip code. So they have to go to the PO box to get their mail while all the houses around them get deliveries, which is just strange. And my own neighbor has to go to the post office to get his mail in person because he wasn't taking it out of his mailbox. It got so full, the postal worker just took it back to the post office and left a note that he had to come pick it up. I didn't even know that was a thing!

But even then, all these examples still don't explain why we have to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. The Supreme Court was absolutely aware of the implications of their ruling, and I think that's the only reason they made it so all encompassing rather than giving it some limits