The President Can’t Ban Mail-In Voting—And Shouldn’t Try

This analysis is in response to breaking news and it has been updated. Please contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the author.

President Donald J. Trump is once again fixated on bad election policy rooted in falsehoods about the integrity of American elections. Earlier this year, he targeted the supposed scourge of non-citizen voting with an executive order (EO) mandating voter citizenship checks. This action has been tied up in litigation for months, with courts recognizing that the EO exceeds the president’s constitutional power. Now, Trump wants to end voting by mail. He is again overplaying his hand, exceeding the bounds of the Constitution, and paving the way for future presidents—including Democrats—to do the same.

After meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin—who reportedly stoked Trump’s insecurity about losing the 2020 election—Trump escalated his attacks on mail-in voting. Initially on his social media platform, Truth Social, and then at a press event with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he vowed to stop the “mail-in ballot hoax” with an EO. Unfortunately for Trump, the Constitution grants him no such power.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for election administration, while Congress retains limited authority over the “times, places, and manner” of House and Senate elections. The president, however, has no special power over elections, nor are the states mere “agents” for the federal government, as Trump alleged. While the president can enforce federal election laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, he cannot unilaterally prohibit or mandate particular election practices, as federal judges confirmed earlier this year.

The problems with Trump’s proposal goes beyond his tactics—his claims are also baseless. He insists that mail-in voting is the source of “massive voter fraud” and that the United States is the “only country in the world” that uses it. Neither is true. Every state relies on mail-in voting in some capacity, and each employs security measures to ensure election integrity. Additionally, many other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Germany, accept votes by mail.

To be clear, mail-in voting has its challenges. Casting a ballot outside of a polling place can create privacy concerns, and it adds administrative challenges for election officials who must confirm voter identity and protect ballot custody. And yes, specific instances of fraud can and do occur. In 2018, for example, the race for North Carolina’s ninth congressional district had to be re-held after Republican Mark Harris’s campaign staff tampered with absentee ballots. The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission similarly warned two decades ago that voting by mail carries increased risks.

But risk is not the same as widespread fraud. Since Carter-Baker, states have significantly improved the security of voting by mail. Today, election officials rely upon signature matching, identification numbers, barcodes, ballot-tracking systems, agreements with the U.S. Postal Service, monitored drop boxes, and other protocols to safeguard the process.

Meanwhile, mail-in ballots have become essential for voters, including those who are housebound, disabled, overseas, or simply unable to reach the polls in person.

The real threat is not voting by mail but the erosion of trust caused by unfounded allegations. A republic can only endure if its citizens—especially those on the losing side—accept the results of the election.

Even if Trump could ban mail-in voting by EO, Republicans should worry about the precedent. If one president can unilaterally outlaw a voting method, another can just easily mandate it or impose any other sweeping change. The Framers designed our system to prevent such autocratic swings by vesting election oversight in the states.

The president’s push to ban mail-in voting on false claims of voter fraud is not just bad policy, it threatens the constitutional guardrails that keep any president unilaterally rewriting the rules. Americans of all political stripes should be concerned.