California officials, meanwhile, continue to defend the state’s election system as secure, while acknowledging that processing millions of ballots is an enormous logistical task that naturally takes time.
Los Angeles County alone has more than 10 million residents—exceeding the population of many U.S. states—which election officials say contributes to the lengthy counting process, according to the New York Post.
State election leaders have consistently rejected President Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud, maintaining that California’s voting system includes multiple safeguards designed to protect election integrity.
The appeals court ruling also does not settle the long-term legality of either the Postal Service’s proposed election mail policy or Trump’s broader election-related executive order. It simply allows the new procedures to move forward while litigation remains ongoing.
Court records identify the case as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Postal Service and Louis DeJoy, No. 26-5257, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In its two-page order, the three-judge panel concluded that the Postal Service met the legal requirements necessary to receive a stay pending appeal, permitting the proposed rule to take effect while the courts continue reviewing the case.
The latest development follows another closely watched election ruling from June, when the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that federal law does not prohibit states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day, provided they were postmarked by the statutory deadline.
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, challenged Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if they arrive up to five business days afterward.
The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and several voters argued that the practice conflicted with federal laws establishing a uniform Election Day for federal elections. Although the Fifth Circuit had previously agreed with that position, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower court’s decision.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
