General Discussion

Much of the order just directs agencies to enforce existing law--so nothing unconstitutional about that.

The parts directing the USPS--which has an odd status as an independent establishment within the executive branch--to involve themselves in how mail-in ballots are sent through the mail system could conceivably be ruled as something the executive branch has in their purview. You can easily see the current SCOTUS going along with that as not being part of actual election administration but as part of a federal responsibility that states must adhere to. States may be able to sidestep this by using another carrier--UPS, FedEx, etc.--but those guys do not necessarily deliver to every address like the USPS which is mandated to provide mail services to all Americans.

Likewise, I can see the current SCOTUS going along with requiring states that do use the USPS to provide a list of eligible voters in order to allow the federal government to "ensure the faithful execution of Federal law." Sure, conservatives used to be all about state's rights, but now they are all into the unitary executive's power...when a republican is in office at least.

The relevant clause of the Constitution merely states:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

And it is not like there was a well-established postal service at the time. It was only later in the same Article that the Constitution granted Congress the ability to "establish Post Offices and post Roads". The SCOTUS "originalists" may easily argue that the Constitution did not contemplate mail-in ballots.

I can, unfortunately, see the SCOTUS saying that this EO does not actually infringe upon times, places, or manner, since it does not tell states they can't use mail-in ballots but only seeks to govern their delivery through a federal agency.

As with too many things we once thought were certain, this is likely not as much of a slam-dunk rejection as we would like for it to be. The simple wording of the Constitution seems to lend itself to all sorts of judicial shenanigans.

And clearly, this EO was written by the lawyers regardless of his signature. He could not tell you what even half of it means. But that also means it is probably not as far-fetched as we would like....

And you'll notice that he has stopped talking about privatizing the USPS. I wonder why?

You can read the order here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/

And more about Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, here:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/

I wholeheartedly agree that it SHOULD be DOA, but it does not take a ton of squinting to see how the SCOTUS could validate much of this blatantly undemocratic order that is cleverly disguised by legalese as just another function of the federal government to "protect" Americans while not actually altering the time, places, or manner of state elections.