{"id":571,"date":"2026-08-27T13:09:29","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T13:09:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571"},"modified":"2026-08-27T13:09:29","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T13:09:29","slug":"the-ripple-effects-of-scotus-mail-in-voting-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571","title":{"rendered":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday was National Dog Day, and we celebrated by updating the SCOTUSblog merch store to include a stainless steel bowl and a very distinguished \u201cSCOTUSdog\u201d bandana. Supplies are limited, so don\u2019t miss getting one of these unique gifts for your attorney-at-paw.<\/p>

Read more The orders docket, why it matters, and this term\u2019s criminal law orders<\/a><\/p>

Plus, if you\u2019d like to attend The SCOTUSblog Summit: 2026 Term Preview on Wednesday, Sept. 16, remember to register your interest here.<\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a , known as an administrative stay, allowing construction on the new White House ballroom to continue for now. The court could release its decision in the interim docket case at any time.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Federal judge lifts final block on Trump mail-in voting order, clearing way for midterm restrictions<\/h3>

Luke Fountain, CNBC<\/p>

On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in an interim docket dispute on President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on mail-in voting, determining that it was too soon for courts to consider a challenge to the order from a group of states. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani cited that decision to explain why she was vacating her nationwide injunction in a separate case that had also blocked implementation of the order, including enforcement of a new U.S. Postal Service rule requiring \u201cstates to provide lists of mail voters and use federally reviewed ballot envelopes with unique barcodes,\u201d according to CNBC. Talwani\u2019s \u201cdecision came as the policy faced a fresh wave of litigation. Democratic-led states filed a new lawsuit earlier Wednesday, while voting-rights groups amended their existing complaint to challenge the finalized U.S. Postal Service rule \u2013 the third legal challenge targeting it.\u201d The new lawsuit, filed by \u201c23 states, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat,\u201d contends that USPS lacks the authority to impose the new rule for mail-in voting and that the rule \u201cviolates the Voting Rights Act and intrudes on states\u2019 constitutional power to administer elections.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Supreme Court Ruling on Mail-In Voting Could Add to Election Confusion<\/h3>

Emily Cochrane, David W. Chen, and Anna Griffin, The New York Times<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

After the Supreme Court on Monday \u201callow[ed] the Trump administration to move ahead with its plans to restrict mail-in voting,\u201d states were left \u201cgrappl[ing] with how to respond,\u201d according to The New York Times. It remains unclear whether the administration will be able to implement new restrictions before this year\u2019s midterm elections, because there are several ongoing legal challenges. \u201cSome states have already designed and printed ballots, a costly endeavor, and the first absentee ballots will be sent starting Sept. 4.\u201d If proposed changes to mail-in voting go into effect, states may need to change, among other things, the envelopes used for ballots to \u201cmeet a different federal standard.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s a huge issue,\u201d said Stuart Holmes, Washington state\u2019s elections director, to the Times. \u201cIt\u2019s not just the logistical challenges of implementing this. It\u2019s the tax dollars that would be wasted to throw all these envelopes away.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Iowa and Montana Ask Supreme Court to Block \u2018Politicized\u2019 Paramount-Warner Bros. Antitrust Suit Filed by California and 11 Other States<\/h3>

Todd Spangler, Variety<\/p>

In a , Iowa and Montana asked the Supreme Court \u201cto stop the antitrust lawsuit brought by 12 Democratic state AGs seeking to block Paramount\u2019s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery,\u201d describing the lawsuit as \u201cpoliticized\u201d and contending that the other states\u2019 interference with the deal will harm them economically, according to Variety. \u201cIowa and Montana argue in their lawsuit that they have no venue other than the Supreme Court to sue California and the 11 other states to resolve \u2018a controversy between sovereigns.\u2019\u201d \u201cTwelve states have effectively vetoed a transaction that the other thirty-eight, and the United States, declined to challenge,\u201d the motion from Iowa and Montana says. \u201cNo other forum can resolve that controversy. Congress made this Court\u2019s jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states exclusive.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Federal court deals potential blow to Republicans over TV advertising rates<\/h3>

Andrew Howard and Jessica Piper, Politico<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit \u201cruled that political parties \u2013 recently allowed by the Supreme Court to spend unlimited amounts in consultation with campaigns \u2013 aren\u2019t entitled to the significantly lower candidate advertising rate when they do so,\u201d according to Politico. The 2-1 stated that the lower rate \u2013 called the lowest unit charge, or LUC \u2013 \u201crequirement and campaign finance statutes are clear that neither political parties nor joint fundraising committees with non-candidate members can be entitled to the LUC.\u201d Politico noted that \u201cRepublicans are almost guaranteed to appeal the Tuesday decision. The GOP had hoped to use their cash advantage and the lower rate to flood the airwaves against Democrats as both parties battle for control of Congress.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Arrest follows sighting of guillotine parked next to the Supreme Court<\/h3>

Ben Conarck, The Washington Post<\/p>

On Tuesday, \u201cU.S. Capitol Police seized a guillotine and arrested a man it says transported it in the bed of his pickup truck before illegally parking it alongside the U.S. Supreme Court building,\u201d according to The Washington Post. Philan-Tam-Duy Le, who drove with the guillotine \u201cto Washington from California, was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon.\u201d In a press release, the police department shared that it is still working \u201cto learn more about why he came to Washington.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

Alcohol at the Supreme Court<\/h3>

By Kelsey Dallas<\/p>

In the term ahead, the Supreme Court may take up a case on a 19th-century law prohibiting at-home production of distilled spirits. If it does, it will be far from the first time the court has considered alcohol restrictions. In her article, Kelsey went through some of the court\u2019s most notable alcohol-related rulings.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

The many layers of Landor<\/h3>

By Richard Garnett<\/p>

For his Rights and Responsibilities column, Richard Garnett revisited Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, in which the court held that state employees may not be held liable in their personal capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The ruling \u201cpoints toward still unresolved questions about the respective roles of courts and legislatures in our crucial, contested experiment in religious freedom,\u201d Garnett wrote.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

The orders docket, why it matters, and this term\u2019s criminal law orders<\/h3>

By Rory Little<\/p>

In his SCOTUSCrim column, Rory Little explored the orders docket, also known as the emergency, interim, or shadow docket. Specifically, he highlighted criminal law orders that landed on this docket during the 2025-26 term.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Podcasts<\/h2>
Amarica’s Constitution<\/span>

An Amendment Like Some Others – Special Guest Vikram D. Amar<\/h3>

Voting rights are in the news. State and federal governments have sought to weigh in and intervene on election laws, including rules for mail-in or absentee voting. Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka bring in the expert on such things: Professor Vik Amar.<\/p>

Read more The many layers of Landor<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Closer Look<\/div>

U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia<\/h3><\/div>

This Closer Look expands on the case description Kelsey wrote for her article on what the Trump administration wants from the Supreme Court next.<\/em><\/p>

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, he launched the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and it to \u201cmaximize governmental efficiency and productivity\u201d by promoting technological advancements and reducing waste. DOGE\u2019s work sparked controversy and legal battles, as watchdog groups questioned its access to Americans\u2019 personal data and the mass layoffs that it championed.<\/p>

Less than a week after DOGE was created, one such watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking internal DOGE communications, as well as messages exchanged between DOGE and federal agencies. In February 2025, the group filed a lawsuit aimed at forcing disclosure of these documents. DOGE countered that it did not qualify as a federal agency under FOIA and was therefore exempt from its requirements. In considering whether DOGE is subject to FOIA, a federal district judge in Washington granted many of CREW\u2019s discovery requests, ordering DOGE to provide it with details about staff members and its communications with government agencies as both sides prepared their arguments about FOIA\u2019s scope.<\/p>

The federal government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which declined to pause the judge\u2019s order, and then to the Supreme Court on its interim docket, asking the justices to block the discovery order. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserted that the order essentially forced DOGE to comply with the FOIA request. On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, a stay, holding that \u201cseparation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.\u201d The court sent the dispute back to the D.C. Circuit for another look.<\/p>

Over the past year, both the district court and the D.C. Circuit have reconsidered the case \u2013 after CREW narrowed its discovery request \u2013 and ruled that DOGE must provide \u201cdetailed information\u201d on current and former DOGE employees, \u201cdirectives\u201d sent by the DOGE administrator to staff members, and efforts to gain access to data held by federal agencies, among other documents.<\/p>

In its petition for review in U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia<\/em>, the Trump administration argues that the lower courts have \u201cdeparted\u201d from the Supreme Court\u2019s June 2025 order, failing to address the separation of powers issues. It urges the justices to take up the case and address what types of discovery orders are appropriate in disputes over access to government information, contending that such legal battles are becoming more common. \u201c[A]llowing the decision below to stand and far-reaching discovery to proceed would sow mischief in countless future cases seeking discovery against high-ranking officials,\u201d Sauer .<\/p>

In its to the petition for review, CREW asserts that the D.C. Circuit followed the Supreme Court\u2019s June order \u201cto the letter\u201d when reviewing the narrower discovery request and further argues that DOGE has complied with similar discovery requests in other cases over the past year. \u201cAs a result, the government cannot claim any meaningful concerns with reproducing modest information about USDS\u2019s structure and authority,\u201d CREW\u2019s brief says. The organization also contends that there is no need for the justices to address the use of discovery orders in disputes over FOIA\u2019s scope at this time. \u201cThe government points to no conflict in the courts of appeals on the question of whether discovery is sometimes permissible,\u201d CREW wrote.<\/p>

U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia<\/em> is scheduled to be considered by the justices during their \u201clong conference\u201d on Sept. 28.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

MR. MITCHELL: \u201cWell, if States are allowed to waive (c)(3), it will open opportunities for gamesmanship. For example, a State’s lawyers could decide whether to invoke (c)(3) based on the strength of opposing counsel. I see my time has expired. Thank you.\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cDo you want to finish your sentence?\u201d<\/p>

MR. MITCHELL: \u201cWe ask the Court to vacate and remand or, in the alternative, affirm. Thank you.\u201d<\/p>

Read more Alcohol at the Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cThat’s a different sentence.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2011)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, a man was arrested after a guillotine was parked next to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,22,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amaricas-constitution","category-contributor-corner","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nThe ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, a man was arrested after a guillotine was parked next to the Supreme Court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/b084b7f029aa6ef71276c0bf24ced9e9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571\"},\"wordCount\":1901,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Amarica's Constitution\",\"Contributor Corner\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571\",\"name\":\"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=571#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, a man was arrested after a guillotine was parked next to the Supreme Court.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/b084b7f029aa6ef71276c0bf24ced9e9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision","datePublished":"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571"},"wordCount":1901,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Amarica's Constitution","Contributor Corner","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571","name":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-27T13:09:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=571#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The ripple effects of SCOTUS\u2019 mail-in voting decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/571\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}