September 21, 2026

There is a monthly cost associated with producing and distributing this newsletter. If you value the information being shared, please consider making a contribution to help keep it going. Your support makes it possible to continue bringing this information to our community.

Battle with BNSF - What Does Winning Look Like?

For nearly two years, residents of Wittmann and the surrounding West Valley have fought BNSF’s massive Logistics Park Wittmann proposal. That fight is not over. But as BNSF moves forward with work it says it can legally undertake, we need to understand what is happening on the ground—and recognize that the definition of “winning” may be changing.

BNSF owns approximately 4,321 acres between Wittmann and Surprise. About 800 acres were purchased by BNSF more than two decades ago. Maricopa County records show that this property historically carried an industrial land-use designation dating back to the 2000 White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan. County records also say a later mapping error removed that designation from approximately 839 acres.

That history matters because BNSF is already moving dirt. Earlier this year, the company began grading several hundred acres. Maricopa County Supervisors subsequently told the federal Surface Transportation Board that BNSF had begun construction on a 350-acre portion of the property. According to her letter, BNSF has asserted that the intermodal facility falls under federal railroad preemption and does not require the same local approvals as the remainder of its development.

In other words, defeating zoning changes for thousands of surrounding acres does not necessarily stop everything BNSF can do on property it already controls.

There Is More Happening Than Rail

Another important piece of this discussion is wastewater infrastructure.

BNSF says it has been working with the City of Surprise on plans for a regional wastewater facility. According to BNSF, one possibility is for the company to design and construct a new regional facility on BNSF property that would be built to City of Surprise specifications. That could potentially create an opportunity for Surprise to connect to and operate regional infrastructure in the future.

That is significant.

For years, much of the discussion surrounding BNSF has understandably focused on what the project could take from this region—road capacity, rural character, water resources and quality of life. But negotiations increasingly appear to involve what infrastructure BNSF could be required to provide or help finance if additional development is ultimately approved.

Transportation remains the biggest issue.

When the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected BNSF’s comprehensive-plan amendment in November 2025, inadequate transportation infrastructure was one of the central concerns. County officials specifically pointed to the lack of sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the project's anticipated traffic. Supervisor Lesko later cited projections of approximately 22,000 daily vehicle trips associated with the full development.

BNSF has committed to several early transportation improvements, including signals at 211th Avenue and SR-74 and at the US-60 project entrance, pavement improvements along 211th Avenue, and improvements at other nearby intersections. The company says it continues working with ADOT, Maricopa County, MAG and Surprise on larger regional transportation needs and funding.

But the elephant in the room remains U.S. 60/Grand Avenue.

Once you reach the outer edge of Surprise, Highway 60 becomes a two-lane highway for much of the corridor toward SR-74. It already needs substantial improvements before adding the traffic associated with a development of this magnitude.

BNSF has discussed contributing 10% towards improvements, but the much larger question is where the remaining money will come from. Transportation dollars are scarce, and many regional transportation funds are already committed years into the future.

BNSF is continuing to work with government agencies on potential funding solutions. In fact, before the County's November 2025 vote, BNSF said it believed the agencies were getting close to a regional transportation solution and envisioned a development agreement that would memorialize a transportation package.

That development agreement could become extremely important. Any infrastructure commitments ultimately negotiated with BNSF need to be written into enforceable agreements—not simply discussed in meetings or promised in presentations.

Development Is Already Following the Railroad

There is another reality we cannot ignore.

Private developers understand the potential value of being near a major BNSF rail operation. Some are making investments in the broader area based on the possibility that BNSF's rail infrastructure will eventually generate demand for warehouses, distribution facilities and other industrial development.

That is a gamble.

BNSF still needs land-use approvals for significant portions of its larger 4,321-acre vision. The County rejected the company's previous comprehensive-plan amendment, and additional development beyond what BNSF can undertake under existing authority remains subject to government decisions and, potentially, further legal challenges.

So What Does Winning Look Like Now?

My position on the proposed intermodal hub has not changed. I still believe the goal should be to prevent BNSF from moving forward with the full intermodal project at this location.

But we also have to deal with reality.

BNSF owns the land. It owns property with a long history of industrial land-use designation. Construction activity has begun on a portion of the site, and BNSF continues pursuing the much larger project.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors made infrastructure a major issue when it rejected BNSF's request in 2025. In my view, Highway 60 remains one of the biggest obstacles standing between BNSF and approval of its broader plans.

If BNSF succeeds in assembling substantial outside funding for widening and improving Highway 60, the political and infrastructure equation could change significantly.

That is why I believe our definition of winning may need to evolve.

Winning may mean delaying the larger project as long as possible. It may mean preventing or substantially reducing the intermodal component. And if additional development ultimately moves forward, it should mean securing the maximum possible investment from BNSF for Highway 60, local roads, wastewater infrastructure, public safety and other improvements the region will need.

I also believe the City of Surprise's position deserves close attention. From what I am seeing, the City's posture toward BNSF appears to be becoming more open to negotiation. If that is the direction discussions are heading, residents deserve transparency about what is being negotiated, what BNSF is promising and what Surprise and Maricopa County would receive in return.

The fight against the BNSF intermodal hub is not over.

But this fight is entering a different phase. We should continue opposing what we believe is inappropriate for Wittmann while also making certain that, if portions of this enormous development eventually become unavoidable, BNSF—not West Valley taxpayers—is required to shoulder as much of the infrastructure burden as possible.

Flock Cameras: Are We Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater?

Across Arizona, cities and towns are reconsidering their use of automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, following reports of misuse and growing concerns about privacy.

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has launched a review of how law enforcement agencies use license plate reader technology. Meanwhile, several Arizona communities have suspended or discontinued their use of Flock Safety cameras.

Cave Creek, Cottonwood, Flagstaff, Payson, Pinal County, Sedona, Sierra Vista, South Tucson, Surprise and Tempe are among the jurisdictions that have suspended, discontinued or decided not to renew their Flock programs.

Some of the concerns are legitimate.

In Chandler, an officer admitted using the system to track a family member and resigned. In Apache Junction, an officer resigned following an investigation that found he had misused the technology to locate his wife. Goodyear has also investigated possible misuse.

Here in Surprise, the city canceled its Flock contract after an audit initially raised concerns about possible misuse. An officer was placed on leave but was later cleared of wrongdoing. Police determined the abnormal activity identified in the audit was the result of a technical issue rather than a policy violation.

Other Arizona communities have reached different conclusions. Phoenix, Tucson and Mesa continue using Flock cameras, while Apache Junction and Goodyear have also continued their programs despite investigations involving individual officers.

That raises an important question:

Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Technology Is a Tool

There is no question that Americans should be concerned about privacy and government surveillance.

There should be clear limits on how ALPR information is collected, searched, shared, stored and accessed. Law enforcement officers should never be permitted to use these systems for personal reasons. Every search should have a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and misuse should carry serious consequences.

But eliminating the technology entirely may create another problem.

Cities across Arizona are facing increasingly difficult budgets while many communities continue to grow. Police departments must cover larger populations and larger geographic areas, yet taxpayers cannot simply write a blank check to continually increase staffing.

Police solved crimes long before license plate readers existed. The question isn't whether they can solve crimes without them.

The question is how much valuable police time these tools can save.

An ALPR can rapidly identify a vehicle associated with a stolen car, wanted suspect, missing person or other legitimate investigation. Instead of an officer spending hours reviewing information manually, technology can help narrow the search and allow that officer to spend more time doing the work we actually need police officers doing.

Technology shouldn't replace police officers. It should help police officers do their jobs more efficiently.

Guardrails, Not a Free-for-All

The incidents in Chandler and Apache Junction demonstrate exactly why safeguards are necessary. They don't necessarily prove that the technology itself should be eliminated.

If an employee misuses a city computer, we don't eliminate computers. If someone improperly accesses a government database, we don't necessarily eliminate the database. We establish rules, restrict access, audit its use and hold people accountable when they violate those rules.

ALPRs should be treated the same way.

Arizona should consider strong statewide guardrails, including requiring a legitimate law enforcement purpose for every search, maintaining searchable audit logs, conducting regular independent audits, limiting how long data can be retained, establishing strict rules governing data sharing, requiring training for authorized users and imposing meaningful penalties for intentional misuse.

There should also be transparency. Residents deserve to know what technology their police department uses, what information is collected, how long it is retained, who can access it and what happens when someone violates the rules.

Privacy and Public Safety Are Not Mutually Exclusive

This discussion too often becomes a choice between two extremes: either give government unlimited surveillance power or eliminate the technology altogether.

There is another option.

Protect privacy while allowing police to use technology responsibly.

I support law enforcement, but supporting law enforcement doesn't mean giving government unlimited access to information about citizens. Likewise, protecting civil liberties doesn't require taking useful investigative tools away from police.

We should demand both accountability and effectiveness.

When technology is misused, investigate it. When an officer intentionally abuses access, hold that person accountable. When policies are inadequate, strengthen them. When technology creates unnecessary privacy risks, address those risks.

But before Arizona communities remove a tool that can help locate missing people, recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects and save officers valuable investigative time, we should ask whether eliminating it actually makes our communities safer.

The better solution may not be fewer tools for law enforcement.

It may be better rules governing how those tools are used.

We can protect our privacy while helping police protect our communities. Those goals do not have to be in conflict.

Why U.S. Security Control in Greenland Matters to America

A major change is taking place in the Arctic, and it could have significant consequences for American national security.

President Donald Trump announced that the United States, Denmark and Greenland have reached an agreement giving the United States what he described as “permanent control” over security in Greenland. The governments of Denmark and Greenland have confirmed that an agreement is expected to be signed during the United Nations General Assembly, although final implementation will require the necessary parliamentary procedures.

Importantly, this does not mean the United States now owns Greenland. Greenland remains a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen say the agreement recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom as well as Greenlanders' right to self-determination.

So why does this matter to the United States?

Greenland Is America's Arctic Front Door

Look at a globe rather than a traditional flat map and Greenland's strategic importance becomes obvious.

The shortest routes between Russia and much of North America cross the Arctic. That makes Greenland extremely important for detecting missiles, monitoring aircraft, tracking activity in space and watching the increasingly important Arctic approaches to the United States and Canada.

America already operates Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland. Formerly known as Thule Air Base, the installation provides missile warning and space surveillance capabilities supporting both the United States and NATO. The American military presence there dates back decades.

The new agreement appears to give the United States considerably more freedom to strengthen that defensive position.

According to a State Department official cited by CBS News, the agreement provides permanent U.S. access and overflight rights and could allow an expanded American military presence. It would also prevent non-NATO countries from establishing military bases in Greenland and restrict adversaries from making investments in sensitive areas.

Keeping Russia and China Out

Perhaps the most important part of the agreement is what it seeks to prevent.

Russia has substantial military capabilities throughout its Arctic territory, while China has increasingly identified the Arctic as strategically and economically important.

Earlier this year, the United States, Denmark, Greenland, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden jointly acknowledged increased Russian military activity and China's growing strategic interest in the region. Those Arctic allies agreed that increased surveillance, military presence and cooperation were necessary.

Under the newly announced arrangement, American adversaries would be prevented from establishing military bases in Greenland. U.S. officials have specifically identified Russia and China as countries that would be excluded from establishing such a military foothold.

From an American security perspective, preventing a hostile military presence in Greenland is significant. A Russian or Chinese military installation there would place an adversary in an extraordinarily sensitive position along the northern approaches to North America.

Missile Defense and Early Warning

Greenland also plays an important role in America's ability to detect threats before they reach the continental United States.

Pituffik's location makes it particularly valuable for missile warning and space surveillance. The base's early-warning capabilities have been important to American and NATO defense since the Cold War.

As missile technology advances—including long-range ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons—the Arctic could become even more important to homeland defense.

An expanded American presence could therefore strengthen the network designed to detect, track and respond to threats approaching North America from the north.

The Arctic Is Becoming More Important

Greenland's importance isn't limited to military bases.

The Arctic is becoming an increasingly important arena for shipping, natural resources, communications infrastructure and military operations. Greenland also possesses significant mineral resources, adding another strategic dimension to the island.

That means the question is no longer simply who protects Greenland.

The larger question is who will shape security in the Arctic for the next several decades?

The United States and its NATO allies clearly do not want the answer to be Russia or China.

Strengthening NATO Without Taking Greenland

There is another important element of the agreement that should not be overlooked.

For months, the dispute over Greenland created considerable tension between the United States and Denmark, two NATO members. The new agreement potentially provides a compromise: the United States gets substantially greater security assurances and military access while Greenland and Denmark retain sovereignty.

NATO has welcomed the agreement, saying it should advance security, stability and cooperation in the region.

That distinction matters.

America does not need to own Greenland to benefit from Greenland's geography. What the United States needs is reliable long-term access, the ability to defend the region and assurances that adversaries cannot establish military or strategically sensitive positions there.

If the final agreement accomplishes those objectives while respecting Greenlandic self-determination and Danish sovereignty, it could resolve many of the security concerns Washington has raised without redrawing national borders.

Geography Doesn't Change

Presidents change. Governments change. Threats change.

Geography does not.

Greenland sits in one of the most strategically important locations for the defense of North America. The United States recognized that reality during World War II and the Cold War, and the renewed competition in the Arctic has brought that reality back into focus.

The full text of the agreement has not yet been released, and important details remain unknown. Those details deserve careful examination once the agreement is signed.

But the strategic principle is straightforward: a secure Greenland, closely integrated with American and NATO defenses and closed to hostile military powers, strengthens the northern defense of the United States.

In an increasingly contested Arctic, that is a significant development for American national security.

What Does It Really Cost to Run an Election in Maricopa County?

When voters walk into a Vote Center or drop an early ballot in the mail, most of us see the final product: a ballot. What we don't see is the enormous operation behind that ballot.

Maricopa County is one of the largest voting jurisdictions in the country, serving more than 2.5 million registered voters. Running an election requires permanent employees, thousands of temporary workers, Vote Centers, ballot printing and postage, warehouses, trucks, couriers, security, computer systems, tabulation equipment, technical support, voter hotlines, advertising, training and much more.

And all of that costs money.

How Maricopa Compares

A set of county comparison figures provided for this article puts election-administration spending per voter at:

CountyCost Per Voter

San Bernardino County, CA $36.38

Los Angeles County, CA $33.22

San Diego County, CA $22.43

King County, WA $22.34

Clark County, NV $17.44

Orange County, CA $14.11

Dallas County, TX $10.22

Riverside County, CA $10.20

Tarrant County, TX $10.09

Maricopa County, AZ $9.36

There is an important caution when comparing these numbers: counties don't necessarily calculate election costs the same way. Some include permanent staffing, facilities, equipment and technology that others account for elsewhere. Even within Maricopa County, the per-voter figure changes depending on which election-cycle expenses are included.

For example, Maricopa County's official 2024 Primary and General Election Plan estimated nearly $29 million for the two elections, or approximately $12 per registered voter using the county's calculation at the time.

So the $9.36 comparison is useful as one benchmark, but it should not be presented as an apples-to-apples audited ranking without knowing precisely what each county included.

Where Does the Money Go?

The 2024 election plan provides a good picture of what it takes to conduct elections here.

Maricopa County budgeted approximately $14.5 million for staffing alone. That included permanent employees, temporary workers, poll workers, central boards, call-center employees, security, incentives and mileage reimbursements.

Another $13.3 million was budgeted for supplies and services.

The largest single item in that category was printing, mailing and postage for ballots and voter-registration identification cards—approximately $9.8 million between the Recorder and Elections operations. Another $1.4 million was budgeted for advertising, while roughly $1.35 million covered expenses including fuel, temporary parking, shuttles, vehicle rentals and Vote Center rentals.

Then there are the smaller expenses that quickly add up: Vote Center supplies, radios and telecommunications, translation services, consumables, ballot reprints and other operational expenses.

Thousands of People Make an Election Happen

The sheer manpower required is easy to underestimate.

For the November 3, 2026 General Election, Maricopa County says it needs more than 4,000 election workers. In addition to poll workers, Elections expects to hire nearly 500 temporary workers for functions including warehouse operations, technical support, ballot courier services, tabulation and hotline support. Temporary positions generally pay between $18 and $23 per hour, depending on the job and experience.

And these aren't all Election Day jobs.

Some temporary employees work for weeks or months before and after an election. Ballots must be prepared. Equipment must be tested. Workers must be recruited, background-checked and trained. Vote Centers must be prepared. Trucks must deliver equipment. Technical workers must be ready to respond when something goes wrong.

On Election Day, poll workers can begin at 5:30 a.m. and continue until approximately 8 p.m. or later.

Follow the Ballot

Consider what has to happen with just one early ballot.

It must be designed and printed correctly, placed into the appropriate ballot packet and mailed to the voter. When returned, it has to be received, secured, processed and ultimately prepared for tabulation.

That requires people and machinery.

Maricopa County employs mail-room workers who transport and process election mail and operate specialized envelope-opening equipment. Pre-tabulation ballot processors work in bipartisan teams, opening and counting ballots, balancing paperwork and preparing ballots for tabulation.

Ballots deposited at drop boxes create another operation entirely. Couriers work in bipartisan teams to retrieve ballots and transport them securely, with chain-of-custody documentation accompanying the transfer.

Then There Is the Equipment

Modern elections also require a substantial technology infrastructure.

Maricopa County's FY2026 Elections budget includes approximately $3.15 million for operating election equipment. The county also added ongoing funding for Ballot on Demand printer licensing, IT contracts and software and hardware licenses.

Ballot-on-demand printers, tabulators, computers, networking equipment and other systems don't simply appear at Vote Centers on Election Day. Equipment has to be stored, maintained, tested, transported, installed and supported.

That means warehouses and trucks.

Warehouse drivers load and transport equipment to voting locations and then bring it back when the election is finished. Technical workers travel among Vote Centers troubleshooting equipment problems.

Maricopa County's election facility itself illustrates the scale of the operation. The facility was designed with expanded public observation areas, more than double the previous pre-tabulation and tabulation capacity, and three times the warehouse space for election equipment.

The 2026 Budget

For FY2026, the Elections Department budget shows approximately $26.46 million in expenditures, including about $8.76 million for personnel, $13.95 million for services, $1.62 million for supplies and $2.13 million for capital and other expenses.

Separately, the county budget identifies $13.8 million in one-time spending for the 2026 Primary Election, divided between $8.6 million for Elections and $5.2 million for the Recorder's Office.

And there is a new expense resulting from the 2026 settlement between the Board of Supervisors and Recorder's Office. Under that agreement, the county will fund additional Recorder positions and $15 million for a separate Recorder IT system. That is an infrastructure expense rather than simply the ordinary cost of conducting one election, so it should not be folded into a per-voter election-cost comparison without explanation.

Elections Are Expensive Because Elections Are Complicated

It is easy to look at an election budget and wonder why it costs millions of dollars to let people vote.

But we aren't paying simply to print pieces of paper.

We are paying for the infrastructure necessary to administer an election for millions of registered voters: full-time employees, temporary workers, poll workers, Vote Centers, ballot printing, postage, warehouses, trucks, fuel, couriers, tabulators, printers, computer systems, cybersecurity, training, public information, security, bipartisan processing teams and documented chains of custody.

There is also redundancy built into the process—and some of that redundancy costs money.

The appropriate question for taxpayers isn't simply, “How much does an election cost?”

It is also, “What are we receiving for that money, and are we administering elections efficiently while maintaining accuracy, security, accessibility and transparency?”

Maricopa County's scale makes that an especially important question. The available county budgets show that elections are a major logistical operation, but they also provide taxpayers with something valuable: the ability to examine where the money is going and ask whether every dollar is necessary.

One thing is certain: Election Day may last one day, but running an election does not.

The Janae Shamp Residency Challenge Raises Questions About Accountability in LD29

Arizona State Senator Janae Shamp is facing a new challenge to her eligibility to represent Legislative District 29, raising questions about residency requirements, legislative attendance and political accountability.

Two LD29 residents, Jim Ashurst and Bob Walling, have asked Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes to pursue a quo warranto action challenging Shamp's right to remain in office. They allege that Shamp actually resides in Wickenburg, outside LD29, rather than at the Surprise address associated with her representation of the district.

The Attorney General's Office has not determined that Shamp violated the law. Spokesperson Richie Taylor told KJZZ that the office is reviewing the matter.

Shamp disputes the allegation.

“I live in the district, I’ve been at the same address for years now,” Shamp told KJZZ, describing the recurring residency questions as political and saying previous questions about the issue have been resolved in her favor.

That response deserves to be included because, until a court or appropriate government authority determines otherwise, the allegation remains exactly that—an allegation.

Why Questions Are Being Raised

The residents challenging Shamp point to several circumstances they believe warrant investigation.

Shamp's campaign committee lists a Wickenburg post office box. KJZZ reports that Shamp is both the candidate and chairman of that committee. Wickenburg is in Legislative District 30.

There is also a Wickenburg property connected to Shamp's husband, Archie “Skip” Shamp. According to KJZZ's review of Maricopa County records, Shamp Investments LLC has owned a house there since 2018. A sign at the property reportedly reads “SHAMP'S HIDEOUT SKIP & JANAE.”

None of those facts, standing alone, establishes Shamp's legal residence. A person can own property outside the legislative district in which he or she resides, and a campaign's mailing address is not necessarily the candidate's residence.

But the challengers say a private investigator also found evidence suggesting Shamp's Surprise property was vacant. That allegation is now part of what they want the Attorney General to examine.

There is another relevant public record.

When Shamp filed her 2024 nomination paperwork, she listed a residential address on West Dynamite Boulevard in Surprise and declared under penalty of perjury that she was a resident of Legislative District 29.

What Does Arizona Law Say?

The legal question is more complicated than simply asking whether Shamp owns property in Wickenburg.

Article IV of the Arizona Constitution establishes residency qualifications for legislators. Arizona law also provides that an elected office becomes vacant when an officeholder ceases to be a resident of the district, county, city, town or precinct for which that person was elected when residence there is required.

The central factual question, therefore, is where Shamp legally resides—not where she owns property or receives campaign mail.

That is precisely the issue the Attorney General's Office has been asked to review.

The Attendance Question

The residency controversy also comes after scrutiny of Shamp's attendance during the 2026 legislative session.

Shamp had 18 excused absences, seven late days and 40 days present during the session. The publication ranked her among lawmakers with the most missed days. It reported that she did not respond to its questions about the absences.

Earlier in the session said Shamp had accumulated 13 excused absences and had not attended a Senate floor session since April 21 at that point. She stated that she had experienced a death in her family.

Shamp missed 375 of 808 votes last session as well..

The Political Accountability Question

The controversy also raises a broader question for Republicans in LD29: what responsibility does a political party have to scrutinize allegations involving its own elected officials?

Some Republicans in the district say concerns about Shamp's residence were known or discussed before the current challenge. I personally have heard dozens of Republicans speak about it privately.

Accountability should not depend upon which party holds the office. Residency requirements exist so voters know that the people elected to represent a district satisfy the legal requirements for holding that seat. Questions about compliance should be investigated based on evidence rather than partisan affiliation.

The same principle applies to attendance. Legislators can have legitimate reasons for missing sessions—including family emergencies, illness and other circumstances—but constituents can also reasonably examine an elected official's attendance and voting record.

What Happens Next Matters

Shamp is the Republican candidate seeking reelection to the LD29 Senate seat in the November 3, 2026 general election.

The timing means the Attorney General's review could become politically significant. But it would be premature to conclude that the controversy puts Republicans at a “serious risk” of losing the seat without current district-level polling or other evidence demonstrating that.

The more immediate issue is simpler.

The Attorney General's Office now has allegations before it. Shamp has unequivocally denied that she lives outside the district. There are public records and competing claims that can be examined.

Those facts should determine what happens next.

Political accountability is most credible when the same standards are applied regardless of whether the elected official has an “R” or a “D” after his or her name. If evidence establishes a violation, it should be addressed. If the evidence establishes that Shamp complies with Arizona's residency requirements, that should be made equally clear.

Either way, LD29 voters deserve a definitive answer based on facts before they cast their ballots.

Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration’s USPS Mail-Ballot Rules for 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

On September 14, the Court denied the administration's emergency request to lift a lower-court injunction against the Postal Service's new Ballot Mail for Federal Elections rule.

The decision represents an important development in the continuing debate over who has authority to establish procedures governing ballots traveling through the federal mail system.

What Did the Trump Administration Want to Change?

President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March directing federal agencies to take several actions concerning election administration and election integrity.

The Postal Service subsequently finalized new requirements governing mail ballots in federal elections.

Under the USPS rule, states and local election officials using the mail to distribute ballots would have been required to follow new Postal Service standards. Among the most significant requirements were providing information concerning mail-ballot recipients to USPS and using approved ballot envelopes equipped with unique Intelligent Mail barcodes.

The Postal Service could refuse to process ballot mail that failed to comply with the requirements.

The administration argued that the requirements would improve the security of ballot mail and help prevent the postal system from being used to facilitate voter fraud.

Opponents argued that the federal government was attempting to assume authority traditionally exercised by states and Congress and warned that implementing an entirely new system shortly before an election could result in legitimate ballots not being delivered.

Federal Judge Blocks the Plan

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction on September 4 preventing USPS from enforcing the mandatory portions of the rule for the November 3 election.

Among the issues before the court was whether USPS had the legal authority to condition states' use of the mail for federal ballots on compliance with these new requirements.

The district court concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed and blocked implementation while the litigation proceeds.

The Trump administration then went to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the rules to take effect.

Supreme Court Says No

The Supreme Court rejected that request.

In its brief order, the Court said the government was "unlikely to succeed on the merits" of its challenge to the preliminary injunction and that the other factors considered when granting emergency relief did not favor the administration.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

But an opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh provides important context about what the Court did—and did not—decide.

Kavanaugh said there was at least a "fair prospect" that the Postal Service's final rule falls within USPS's statutory authority.

His concern was timing.The Purcell Principle named after Arizona's own past Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell was at play. The Purcell principle is a Supreme Court doctrine counseling federal courts against changing election rules close to an election because last-minute changes can create voter confusion and administrative problems. It generally favors leaving existing election procedures in place as Election Day approaches.

The new rule was finalized only weeks before the November election. Kavanaugh concluded that applying it to the 2026 elections would violate federal administrative law because state and local election officials did not have enough time to reasonably implement the requirements.

That distinction matters.

This May Not Be the End of the USPS Proposal

The Supreme Court's action should not be interpreted as a final ruling that the Postal Service can never establish additional requirements for ballot mail.

The underlying litigation continues.

In fact, Kavanaugh's concurrence leaves open the possibility that at least some USPS requirements could survive a future legal challenge if adopted with sufficient notice and through lawful administrative procedures.

That means this issue could return for the 2028 election cycle.

For 2026, however, the result is clear: states will not be required to implement the Trump administration's new USPS ballot-mail system before the November 3 midterms.

A Bigger Constitutional Question Remains

This case raises an issue much larger than barcodes on ballot envelopes: Where does federal authority end and state authority begin when elections involve the U.S. mail?

The Constitution gives states significant responsibility for administering elections, while Congress has constitutional authority to regulate federal elections. At the same time, USPS is a federal institution responsible for establishing rules governing the nation's mail system.

The Trump administration argues that the federal government has a legitimate interest in protecting the postal system from being used to facilitate election fraud.

Opponents argue that USPS cannot use its authority over the mail to effectively establish new election requirements that Congress itself has not enacted.

The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved that broader dispute.

What Happens Now?

For voters, the immediate effect is relatively simple.

The new USPS requirements will not apply to the November 3, 2026 midterm election while the lower-court injunction remains in effect.

For policymakers, however, the case is far from over.

The administration could continue defending the rule in court, modify it, or pursue similar requirements well before the 2028 election.

And that may ultimately produce the more consequential Supreme Court decision—one addressing not simply whether the government waited too long in 2026, but exactly how much authority the Postal Service has over the ballots it carries.

For now, the Supreme Court has stopped the Trump administration's plan for 2026.

It has not necessarily closed the door on the idea itself.

My thoughts

My belief is simple: the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections. I do not believe the U.S. Postal Service should have a role in election administration or setting election procedures. Its role should be straightforward—deliver mail-in ballots to voters and return completed ballots to election officials. Election rules and administration should remain with the appropriate state and local election authorities.