The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to intervene in President Trump's fight for more stringent mail voting rules. CBS News' Katrina Kaufman has more.
Page A4From§Eachthe milkman edition — 4 September 2026
Trump asks Supreme Court for both mail-in ballot restrictions and mail-in ballot rules
As it ran on the front
The day’s docket brings us a rare sight: a government so committed to order that it files on both sides of the question. First, the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to rule on mail-in ballot rules, seeking clarity for upcoming elections. That’s the headline, and at first blush, a reasonable ask—after all, who doesn’t want clear rules? But just a little further down the wire, the same administration is petitioning the Court to allow new restrictions on mail-in voting. Now, if you’re keeping score at home, that’s not just asking for rules—it’s asking for the power to rewrite them, mid-game, with a preference already penciled in.
This isn’t a contradiction, it’s an advanced form of multitasking: two filings, one objective—make the process as contingent as possible, so the rules can change depending on who’s holding the pen. In the press room, the talking points are all about integrity and clarity. On the docket, the footnotes tell a different story: every rule clarified is another rule ready to be trimmed, if the numbers don’t suit.…
…(cont) And when the Court returns a decision, the administration can say—earnestly, on camera—that they merely wanted a fair standard. Just don’t ask which fair standard, or whose. The magic trick is keeping the audience looking at the principle, while the practice keeps moving the goalposts. In the end, the only thing guaranteed is the administration’s place at the table—everyone else is left to guess whether their ballot will be on the menu, or off.
“So they want the Court to make the rules and break them in the same breath. It isn't about process—it's about who gets to vote and who gets counted. End of the day, the rule is: heads they win, tails you lose.”
“Look, it's important for the administration to ensure election integrity, and sometimes that means clarifying previous requests, not contradict—well, it's a complicated process, and I think everyone can agree, or at least most reasonable people, that the integrity of the process is the—wait, did I say both sides? That can't be right.”
The receipts
The question of whether President Donald Trump’s restrictions can move forward in time for November’s midterm elections has been the subject of a dizzying legal battle in recent weeks.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.