The state had removed mail-in requirements for all voters over 65 originally.
Page A5From§Eachthe late evening edition — 30 August 2026
Postal Service rule could bar millions from mail voting as South Carolina’s mail-in law struck down
Officially, the United States Postal Service exists to deliver mail, not to influence elections. When a procedural rule threatens to bar millions from voting by mail (13), the intention is efficiency, not disenfranchisement — at least, that's the line. Meanwhile, a federal court strikes down South Carolina's mail-in voting law for violating the Constitution (5), which, we are told, is about upholding standards, not about limiting access. The defense is that these are separate issues: one agency updating its operations, one state adjusting its statutes. But the cumulative effect is clear. Did I say suppression? I meant modernization. If voters lose the mailbox, they lose the ballot. It's not about restricting participation, unless it is. The official story is process, but the impact is exclusion. When institutions change the rules, millions are left out, and the process becomes the product. The column continues on page 2.
“When the Postal Service and the courts both make mail-in voting harder, that's not a glitch, it's a feature. You lose the mailbox, you lose the ballot. The stakes? If millions get blocked, the game isn't about who votes — it's about who doesn't.”
“The integrity of elections depends on clear rules. If the Postal Service has to update procedures, that's just modernization, not suppression. And the federal ruling on South Carolina only means the law needs adjusting, right? It's about protecting the process, not restricting it — unless, well, that's how it looks.”
The receipts
A judge temporarily blocked the agency from implementing a strict new rule governing mail voting. The policy could disproportionately affect Democrats and many battleground elections.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.