Editor’s Note: This story involves a developing federal court case with immediate implications for North Carolina’s absentee-ballot process. Under the current court order, USPS is not using the new verification requirements before accepting ballots.
Story source documents can be found by clicking here.
Holly Springs, NC, Sep. 3, 2026 — If you plan to vote by mail in North Carolina this November, a federal court case being heard this week could affect how absentee ballots move through the Postal Service.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked key parts of a new U.S. Postal Service rule that would require states to clear several new verification steps before USPS would accept their ballots for mailing. North Carolina is among 25 states challenging the rule, with county boards of elections required to begin mailing absentee ballots September 4th.
For now, nothing has changed for North Carolina voters. USPS says the verification procedures are not being performed, and there is no indication that absentee ballots are being held or rejected under the new system.
What the new rule would do
The rule would require state election officials to upload mail voters’ names, addresses and ballot barcodes into a new USPS system called the Federal Ballot Mail Portal. States would also have to submit ballot-envelope designs for approval and complete a physical barcode-verification process before USPS would accept ballots for mailing.
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts temporarily blocked those requirements after finding that the states and voting-rights groups challenging the rule are likely to succeed in their case. She found that the federal government likely lacked authority to impose them because election administration is primarily a state responsibility under the Constitution and the government had not identified congressional authorization giving USPS the power claimed under the rule.
USPS described the rule as supporting election integrity, preventing fraud and facilitating federal law enforcement. Talwani noted, however, that USPS had acknowledged elsewhere in the rulemaking process that the incidence of voter fraud was not part of its legal justification.
“The record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting,” she wrote.
States were also left with little time to comply. Many had already ordered ballots, some were approaching legal deadlines to begin mailing them, and USPS had not said how long approval of ballot designs would take. Talwani found compliance “practically impossible” for the November election and described the potential disenfranchisement of voters as a “grave” harm.
Her order does not shut down the Federal Ballot Mail Portal. USPS can continue developing it and states can participate voluntarily, but mandatory enrollment, required design approval and refusal of ballots that have not passed verification are blocked for the November 3rd election.
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined the multistate lawsuit August 26th, arguing that the rule threatened to disrupt absentee voting just as states were preparing to distribute ballots. Hundreds of thousands of eligible North Carolinians vote by mail during a typical midterm election, and Jackson’s office cited older voters, people with disabilities, military personnel stationed overseas and western North Carolina residents still recovering from Hurricane Helene among those who could be affected by disruptions.
“The Constitution is clear on this: The states have the authority over elections, not the Postal Service,” Jackson said. “Not only is this last-minute rule change against the law, but it threatens North Carolinians’ voting rights and imposes a whole new process right before an election.”
North Carolina had also challenged the presidential executive order behind the rule in earlier litigation, prevailing at the trial and appellate levels before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the injunction. Jackson’s office said the Supreme Court acted for procedural reasons and did not rule on the legality of the order itself.
The USPS rule stems from an executive order President Donald Trump signed March 31st titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” Its stated purpose is to prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections and it called for measures including unique ballot barcodes.
The order gave USPS 120 days to issue a final rule. The Postal Service published it August 26th, several weeks after that deadline and less than a week before its planned September 1st implementation. Election deadlines were already approaching and the underlying requirements were being challenged in court.
Questions about how the Portal was built
A separate set of questions has emerged about how USPS developed the Federal Ballot Mail Portal.
An anonymous USPS whistleblower represented by the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid provided a disclosure to U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut alleging that development was rushed, poorly coordinated and inadequately tested. The allegations have not been independently verified, and USPS disputes the whistleblower’s characterization of the project.
According to the disclosure, cross-team work began around June 15th, leaving about 10 weeks before the planned September 1st launch. The whistleblower said a project of similar scope would normally require nine months to a year, an estimate also made separately by Postal Regulatory Commission member Tom Day.
The disclosure describes unclear requirements, poor coordination among teams and testing compressed into as little as four working days. When workers raised concerns about whether the system could be ready, the whistleblower says a senior USPS official responded, “We cannot fail,” and said everything had to work perfectly.
The whistleblower also alleges that USPS continued working on the Portal during periods when court orders restricted implementation of the rule. USPS denies violating any court order.
One part of the whistleblower’s timeline remains unclear. The disclosure and Blumenthal’s letter identify June 25th as the date a court order first froze work connected with the rule, while Talwani’s account of the earlier litigation identifies July 7th as the date of final judgment. The available records do not establish whether those dates refer to separate court actions.
USPS responded publicly September 1st, saying its work on the Portal “has at all times been conducted in a manner consistent with court orders.” The agency noted that Talwani’s order allows continued development for voluntary use and confirmed that the verification process at the center of the immediate dispute is not operating.
“Consistent with the temporary restraining order, verification procedures prior to acceptance are not being performed,” USPS said.
The agency says it is completing the Portal for voluntary use by election officials rather than proceeding with the mandatory nationwide launch originally planned for September 1st. It also said it is “committed to transparency, accountability, and working constructively with election officials, Congress, the courts, and all stakeholders.”
USPS did not respond individually to the whistleblower’s allegations about the development schedule, testing or internal communications.
What happens now
The court is scheduled to consider whether to extend the current block September 3rd. North Carolina counties are required to begin mailing absentee ballots the following day.
September 4th is also Blumenthal’s deadline for USPS to answer questions arising from the whistleblower disclosure, with additional records due September 8th. The midterm election is November 3rd.
Unless the court changes the current order, USPS cannot require North Carolina election officials to use the new verification process before accepting their ballots for mailing.
Story source documents can be found by clicking here.