this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
636 points (99.5% liked)

News

39501 readers
1988 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The US Postal Service effort to develop a sweeping new system for verifying mail ballots has invited a host of IT concerns among agency officials, with some describing the process internally as a “sh*t show,” according to a new whistleblower report released Tuesday by a Democratic senator.

The unnamed whistleblower is alleging that some of the procedures USPS is planning – under mandates put forward by President Donald Trump – have been hidden from the public. Those procedures will make an already complicated and risky plan even more vulnerable to potential mass disenfranchisement, the whistleblower says.

The new report – which was assembled by the whistleblowers’ lawyers and released by Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal – comes as multiple courts are considering the legality of the proposal, which would require that states submit to USPS lists of their mail-in voters. The agency will not deliver ballots for states if there are any discrepancies between the voter information in the USPS system and what’s picked up by agency scanners on the envelopes of the ballots.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, ballots are clearly time sensitive. Reporting from 2020 claimed that UPS and FedEx can't legally postmark ballots: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fedex-ballot-vote-mail-facts-190031449.html

But can states just declare that unnecessary? I mean, a lot of states have ballot drop boxes, so it's not like USPS mail is the only alternative to in-person voting.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're not time sensitive in the sense that the first class monopoly law means.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/320.6

The delivery window needs to be measured in hours for it to qualify.

As for the postmark requirement, that would entirely depend on the state. Usually the law is written in such a way that it's dropbox, hand it to clerk, or received by postal service. The postmark requirement is because it's usually not permitted to give the ballot to someone outside of your home, but the postal service is an exception because they're part of the government. There's no provision in the law for accepting the word of a parcel service for when they got a ballot.

States could change that but they'd run into the first class mail restriction.
The best bet would be to permit a "moving drop box" where a municipal clerk could bring the box to your house. Make it like an ice cream truck playing patriotic music.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck it. Pull a Trump. Do it anyway and make them sue or come after you for it. Boot up a state-backed volunteer-run ballot delivering operation. Encourage people to pick up their ballots at county courthouses or other similar locations. For those who can't make it, have a portal where a volunteer can drive a ballot out to them. Same for picking the ballots back up.

If they want to litigate it, tie them up in court long enough that it won't matter. You already have the ballots at that point.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

Oh, every single one of those is legal except paying anyone else, like UPS, to do it.

I don't want them to do that one in specific because it gives them actual, as opposed to pretextual, justification to send postal marshals to raid and seize mail in ballots.
Sueing a secretary of state is fine, but an excuse to legally seize ballots would have immediate consequences on the election beyond what a lawsuit would.