"Uniquely serialized [barcodes] facilitate the tracking of individual pieces of Ballot Mail to and from individual voters as the barcodes are scanned on the Postal Service’s mail processing equipment," the proposed rule states.
The proposed USPS regulation: what it would require
The U.S. Postal Service has published a proposed regulation described as applying "uniform standards for the mailing of absentee ballots to and from voters." That proposal would require new ballot envelope standards with unique, serial barcodes, an "election mail" logo and other changes the rule says would let USPS track ballots at a highly granular, individual level as barcodes are scanned on Postal Service processing equipment.
The proposal states that the Postal Service would compile lists submitted by states of eligible mail‑in and absentee voters into a "Mail‑In and Absentee Participation List" and then provide that list back to the states. The rule also says USPS "would not change the information provided by states" when compiling that return list.
How the executive order integrates with DHS and DOJ checks
The regulation follows an executive order issued in March by President Donald Trump that would require states to furnish the federal government with lists of all voters eligible to vote by mail prior to USPS mailing ballots. The White House directed the Department of Justice to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or others involved in administering federal elections who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.
The federal government signaled plans to cross‑check state lists with data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. The proposed USPS rule describes a process in which states submit lists, USPS compiles and returns participation lists, and USPS would perform certain checks — including barcode checks — to "confirm that a state submitted a list consistent with the conditions laid out in the proposed rule, and that the outbound ballot mail ... is destined to individuals on the list."
At the same time, the rule claims USPS "would not verify whether individuals should be included" on state lists and that states retain "full control over the content of that list," language that exists alongside the DOJ prioritization directive in the March order.
Legal challenges and Judge Carl Nichols' procedural ruling
The administration's plan has been met with immediate legal challenges. Voting rights groups sued to block the executive order; in one case before Judge Carl Nichols, plaintiffs asked for an injunction to halt the order's implementation. Judge Nichols declined to issue a preliminary injunction on procedural grounds but left open the possibility of later relief.
As Judge Nichols wrote: "The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted."
A separate federal lawsuit challenging the order in Massachusetts remains ongoing, meaning multiple courts are still considering whether and how the government's plan can proceed.
Protect Democracy's assessment and constitutional concerns
Alexandra Chandler, director of Free and Fair Elections at the nonprofit Protect Democracy, argued that USPS and the federal government lack constitutional authority to regulate how states administer their elections, including "micromanaging voter roll maintenance." Chandler described the proposed regulation as an attempt to disrupt election processes and sow distrust among voters, saying it would "lay the groundwork to disrupt ballot delivery in real time, create fodder for false investigations and prosecutions, and to contest the midterms after the fact."
Chandler warned the rule seeks to "turn postal workers into de facto election auditors with the power to decide whether people’s votes get counted" while creating a federal "voter data and technical infrastructure it has no legal authority to create." The proposed rule does include caveats the Postal Service says would limit its responsibility: for example, USPS "assumes no responsibility for any outbound ballot mailing" until it is accepted into the mail and would be "not responsible for service delays" when preparation or entry standards are not met.
What this means for states, postal workers, and voters
- States and election officials: They would be required to submit lists of eligible mail‑in and absentee voters to the federal government under the March order, and those lists would be compiled and returned by USPS as a participation list. States retain "full control over the content of that list," according to the proposed rule, but the mechanics of federal cross‑checks with DOJ and DHS data are written into the administration's plan.
- Postal workers and USPS operations: The rule would add barcode and envelope standards that enable individual‑piece tracking when barcodes are scanned on mail processing equipment. Protect Democracy has said that could transform postal employees' roles into election‑related verification tasks; the rule itself asserts USPS "would not verify whether individuals should be included" on state lists but also describes checks to confirm consistency with the rule's conditions.
- Voters: The combination of uniquely serialized barcodes, federal cross‑checks and the DOJ directive to pursue alleged misissuance of ballots raises the possibility, in the administration's language and critics' warnings, that delivery could be monitored more tightly and that lists could become the focus of investigations or prosecutions if discrepancies are alleged.
The Postal Service has moved forward with the proposed rule while multiple federal courts continue to consider legal challenges and while plaintiffs retain the option to renew motions if a final rule or federally developed state lists produce concrete harms. The dispute now centers on whether the regulatory language and the March executive order will stand, and — if they do — how the promised checks, barcodes and "participation lists" will be used in practice.
