By Guy Page

Vermont Attorney General Charity R. Clark has joined a coalition of 24 Attorneys General in a letter of formal opposition to a proposed U.S. Postal Service (USPS) rule, her office announced July 2.

Clark and the others AGs say the “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” rule would unconstitutionally interfere with state-run elections. They are calling for the immediate withdrawal, arguing it would create a “one size fits all” federal mandate that ignores the unique voting laws of states like Vermont.

The proposed rule, which stems from an Executive Order issued in March 2026, would require states to submit voter names and addresses to a new federal “Mail-In and Absentee Participation List” as a prerequisite for mail-in ballots to be delivered. 

The March 30 order declares that “the Federal Government has an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the United States to enforce Federal law, which includes preventing violations of Federal criminal law and maintaining public confidence in election outcomes. To enhance election integrity via the United States Mail, additional measures are necessary.”

Under the proposed system, the USPS would refuse to accept or deliver any ballot mail for individuals not enrolled in this federal database

.

A primary concern for Vermont officials is the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters due to the state’s flexible absentee voting deadlines. 

The coalition’s letter highlights that while the USPS proposal requires enrollment lists to be finalized well in advance, Vermont law allows voters to request an absentee ballot as late as one day before an election. 

The Attorneys General warn that this “quick turnaround” creates a serious risk that the USPS will erroneously screen out legitimate ballots due to unavoidable delays in processing information between state election offices and federal authorities

.

The legal challenge also emphasizes that the rule would upend significant state preparations already underway for the 2026 election cycle. 

Many states have already designed and ordered ballot envelopes in reliance on existing regulations, and the proposed changes—set to take effect just months before the November general election—would render these materials unusable at a substantial financial cost to taxpayers.

Beyond administrative hurdles, the coalition argues the rule is a violation of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the primary authority to regulate the manner of federal elections. 

The letter further asserts that the rule violates the Privacy Act by creating a federal surveillance regime to track the First Amendment-protected activity of individual voters.

The Attorneys General also noted that a federal district court in Massachusetts has already enjoined the USPS from implementing this rule for the 24 plaintiff states, declaring the underlying Executive Order unconstitutional and “legally void”.