Saved copy of
Brief amici curiae of DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, et al., No. 26A305
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence et al., filed at the Supreme Court · 2026-09-10
The saved file is a PDF document of 0.3 MB. What follows is the text taken from it, which is the text the story quotes.
No. 26A305
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Applicants,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Applicants,
v.
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,
Respondents.
On Application for Stay of Injunction of the Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts
BRIEF OF DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, NATIONAL
WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND VICTIM RIGHTS LAW CENTER, ET AL.
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
ALETHEA ANNE SWIFT
Counsel of Record
RONALD FEIN
BRIAN D. NETTER
Democracy Forward Foundation
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
(202) 383-0794
aswift@democracyforward.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 3
I. Address confidentiality programs are necessary to ensure that
survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking can
safely exercise their right to vote. ............................................................ 3
II. The Final Rule’s mail ballot list requirement is incompatible
with address confidentiality programs, and its rushed
implementation will disenfranchise countless survivors. ....................... 7
III. The Final Rule discriminates against eligible voters who are
victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking in
violation of 39 U.S.C. § 403. .................................................................... 14
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 16
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
AFSCME v. Trump, No. CV ELH-25-0596, 2026 WL 1842617 (D. Md.
June 26, 2026) .................................................................................................... 12
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-
3501, 2026 WL 1784297 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026), application for stay
pending, No. 26A308 (filed Sep. 8, 2026) .......................................................... 12
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) ....................................................................... 3
FEDERAL STATUTES
39 U.S.C. § 403 .......................................................................................................... 2, 14
39 U.S.C. § 412 .............................................................................................................. 12
STATE STATUTES
8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1505-1 ............................................................................................ 5
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-153 ........................................................................................ 10, 11
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-165 ............................................................................................... 10
Cal. Elec. Code § 2166............................................................................................... 5, 10
Cal. Elec. Code § 2166.5............................................................................................ 5, 10
Cal. Elec. Code § 2166.7............................................................................................ 5, 10
Cal. Elec. Code § 2166.8............................................................................................ 5, 10
Cal. Elec. Code § 2166.9............................................................................................ 5, 10
Colo. Elect. R. 2.10.3.B.b. ............................................................................................. 10
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204...................................................................................... 5, 10
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-30-2108.......................................................................................... 5
ii
Fla. Stat. § 741.401 ......................................................................................................... 7
Fla. Stat. § 741.406 ......................................................................................................... 6
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-1 ................................................................................................... 5
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-2 ................................................................................................... 5
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-3 ................................................................................................... 5
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-4 ................................................................................................... 5
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-5 ................................................................................................... 5
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 47:4-6 ................................................................................................... 5
Wash. Rev. Code § 40.24.010 ...................................................................................... 5, 7
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
39 C.F.R. § 111.1 ........................................................................................................... 15
39 C.F.R. pt. 111 ........................................................................................................... 12
Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (Aug. 26, 2026) ......... 2, 7, 8, 15
Exec. Order No. 14399, § 2(b), Ensuring Citizenship Verification and
Integrity in Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (Mar. 31, 2026) ............... 12
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Access to and Use of Voter Registration Lists, Nat’l Conf. of State
Legislatures (June 10, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-
campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists .................................... 4
Address Confidentiality Programs by State, Nat’l Ass’n of Confidential
Address Programs (June 18, 2025), https://perma.cc/2UHB-ESX9 ................... 4
Amy Rolph, Voting can be dangerous for domestic violence survivors in
Washington state, KUOW (Oct. 9, 2018), https://perma.cc/2BB4-
8KQC..................................................................................................................... 5
iii
Anna Liz Nichols, Michigan launches address confidentiality program to
protect violence survivors, Michigan Advance (Sep. 13, 2023),
https://perma.cc/RXN9-Q2CW ........................................................................... 15
Danielle Root, Obstacles to Voting for Survivors of Intimate Partner
Violence, Center for American Progress (Nov. 1, 2018),
https://perma.cc/39J3-VV8M ............................................................................... 5
Domestic Violence Statistics, National Domestic Violence Hotline,
https://perma.cc/C6GY-HGBE ............................................................................. 4
Domestic Violence, Dep’t of Justice, https://perma.cc/54XB-3DRW ............................. 4
Gisela Salas & Maria Matthews, The State of Florida Address
Confidentiality Program, Fla. Off. of the Att’y Gen. 12 (May 23,
2012), https://perma.cc/EDF6-KJLP ................................................................... 6
Mary Roche, The SAVE Act and Other Voting Barriers for Survivors of
Domestic Violence, League of Women Voters (April 15, 2026),
https://perma.cc/VCM4-XNQG .......................................................................... 14
Ruth W. Leemis et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey: 2023/2024 Sexual Violence Data Brief, U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (Dec. 2025),
https://perma.cc/S2BS-U8B3 ............................................................................... 4
Scottie Andrew, For abuse victims, registering to vote brings a dangerous
tradeoff, CNN (Oct. 27, 2020), https://perma.cc/5WWD-BKSW ........................ 5
Table 5: Applying for an Absentee Ballot, Including Third-Party
Registration Drives, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (Feb. 24,
2026), https://perma.cc/65YL-X5RU .................................................................. 15
Teia Swan, Hidden Barriers: Domestic Violence and Obstacles to Voting,
No More (Sep. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/6YC5-JXHE ..................................... 5
USPS Rulemaking Analysis, Institute for Responsive Government (June
15, 2026), https://perma.cc/GJC6-5EQF.............................................................. 7
VAWnet, Address Confidentiality Programs, Nat’l Network to End
Domestic Violence (NNEDV) (Jan. 2016), https://perma.cc/4LVC-
SQUC .................................................................................................................... 4
iv
Witlee Ethan, Domestic violence victims need to be able to vote without
being outed, The Charlotte Observer (July 20, 2017),
https://perma.cc/WX6E-4MCP ............................................................................. 5
v
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici curiae are organizations working to ensure the elimination of domestic
violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking in America and beyond. They include the
Black, Indigenous, & People of Color (BIPOC) Collective, DC Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, me too. International, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence,
National Women’s Law Center, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Sakhi for South Asian Survivors,
and Victim Rights Law Center (collectively, “Amici”). Amici serve as resources for the
hundreds of thousands of Americans who are subjected to domestic violence, sexual
violence, and/or stalking every year, as well as for the organizations that directly
support those survivors. Amici deliver a continuum of services to help victims and
survivors find safety, obtain justice, and build lives free of abuse, including by
providing emergency supportive services, meeting the legal needs of survivors,
advocating for survivor-centered policy, conducting research, and/or equipping
survivors with voter education resources.
The ability of survivors to freely and safely exercise their right to vote is of
critical concern to Amici and their members and coalition partners. Voting is a way
that survivors can reclaim their power and autonomy—not just by instilling a sense
of regained control, but also by providing a pathway for survivors to advocate for their
rights and the rights of other victims of abuse. Amici submit this brief to offer their
1 No party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party, counsel for a party, or any person
other than amici curiae or their counsel made a monetary contribution toward the preparation and
submission of this brief.
1
unique perspective on why the Court should decline to stay the district court’s
preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the United States Postal Service
(“USPS”) final rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (Aug. 26,
2026) (the “Final Rule”).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Both the balance of the equities and the public interest should compel this
Court to deny the pending application for emergency relief. The Final Rule enjoined
by the district court threatens to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters,
including victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking who
participate in state-managed address confidentiality programs (“ACPs”). Such
programs are critically important to ensuring that survivors can safely exercise their
fundamental right to the vote. But the Final Rule’s mail ballot list requirement is
incompatible with ACPs, and its rushed implementation will disenfranchise
countless survivors. Moreover, while Congress has dictated that USPS shall not
“make any undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mails,” 39
U.S.C. § 403(c), the Final Rule discriminates against survivors of domestic violence,
sexual violence, and/or stalking by forcing eligible voters who participate in ACPs to
choose between having their confidential information disclosed—putting themselves
and their family members in danger—or being disenfranchised. And because
survivors are especially likely to move or register quickly due to critical safety and
privacy concerns in the wake of violence, including immediately prior to an election,
2
the proposed Rule is likely to disproportionately burden their free exercise even if
they are not yet registered with a state address confidentiality program.
ARGUMENT
For those Americans who are survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence,
and stalking, voting by mail is often the only way to safely cast a ballot. See, e.g., Vigil
Decl. ¶ 40, No. 1:26-cv-13917-IT (D. Mass.), Dkt. 4-16 (explaining that voting by mail
is “particularly important for the many New Mexicans who . . . suffered intimate
partner violence”).2 But the Final Rule is incompatible with ACPs, as demonstrated
by substantial record evidence showing that implementation of the Rule would force
many survivors to choose between protecting their safety and/or privacy and
exercising their right to vote. This Court has described that right as a “fundamental
political right” that is “preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356,
370 (1886). Granting Applicants’ request would risk the mass disenfranchisement of
survivors, especially those who participate in state ACPs. The Court should deny
Applicants’ request for a stay.
I. Address confidentiality programs are necessary to ensure that
survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking can
safely exercise their right to vote.
To secure survivors’ safety and privacy and facilitate their free exercise of the
right to vote, nearly every state in the country has adopted an address confidentiality
2 With the exception of citations to the declaration of United States Postal Service Chief Customer and
Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President Steven W. Monteith, see infra, all docket citations are
to filings in No. 1:26-cv-13917-IT (D. Mass.).
3
program (ACP).3 ACPs are administered by individual states and enable victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or stalking to keep their address hidden and
use an alternate mailing address for a variety of public and official processes,
including voting.4
States enacted these programs because, unfortunately, our society remains
beset by high rates of domestic violence,5 sexual violence, and stalking. Nearly half of
women (45.1%) in the United States report experiencing some form of contact sexual
violence in their lifetimes.6 More than one in three has experienced rape, physical
violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.7 Survivors face endless barriers
when it comes to seeking safety.
These barriers include unique burdens on survivors’ ability to safely exercise
their right to vote. In almost every state, voter registration information is considered
part of the public record.8 As a result, “[p]eople experiencing or who have experienced
intimate partner violence may have significant privacy concerns related to the voter
registration process,” and “[t]he fear of being found might deter victims from
3 Today, 45 states and the District of Columbia have some type of ACP. See Address Confidentiality
Programs by State, Nat’l Ass’n of Confidential Address Programs (June 18, 2025),
https://perma.cc/2UHB-ESX9.
4 VAWnet, Address Confidentiality Programs, Nat’l Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) (Jan.
2016), https://perma.cc/4LVC-SQUC.
5 The Department of Justice defines domestic violence as “a pattern of abusive behavior in any
relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate
partner.” Domestic Violence, Dep’t of Justice, https://perma.cc/54XB-3DRW.
6 Ruth W. Leemis et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2023/2024 Sexual
Violence Data Brief, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at 3 (Dec. 2025),
https://perma.cc/S2BS-U8B3. “Contact sexual violence is a combined measure that includes rape, being
made to sexually penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, and/or unwanted sexual contact.” Id. at 2.
7 Domestic Violence Statistics, National Domestic Violence Hotline, https://perma.cc/C6GY-HGBE.
8 See Access to and Use of Voter Registration Lists, Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures (June 10, 2026),
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/access-to-and-use-of-voter-registration-lists.
4
registering to vote, even if they are otherwise motivated to participate in the
election.”9 In the words of one survivor: “I wanted to vote, but I also wanted to stay
safe.”10 From another: “The year I discovered that my name and address as a
registered voter were being published publicly was the year I stopped voting. . . . I
resigned myself that I would not vote again as long as I couldn’t keep my information
private.”11 As one expert has explained: “For victims of domestic violence, voting is
suppressed because they can’t trust to have their names on voter registration rolls.”12
Under address confidentiality programs, a survivor of sexual violence,
domestic violence, or stalking13 files an application for a “substitute” address (e.g., a
post office box in the state capital or fictitious street address) with the appropriate
governmental agency. After the applicant is accepted and certified into the program,
9 Danielle Root, Obstacles to Voting for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, Center for American
Progress (Nov. 1, 2018), https://perma.cc/39J3-VV8M; see also Teia Swan, Hidden Barriers: Domestic
Violence and Obstacles to Voting, No More (Sep. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/6YC5-JXHE.
10 Witlee Ethan, Domestic violence victims need to be able to vote without being outed, The Charlotte
Observer (July 20, 2017), https://perma.cc/WX6E-4MCP.
11 Amy Rolph, Voting can be dangerous for domestic violence survivors in Washington state, KUOW
(Oct. 9, 2018), https://perma.cc/2BB4-8KQC.
12 Scottie Andrew, For abuse victims, registering to vote brings a dangerous tradeoff, CNN (Oct. 27,
2020), https://perma.cc/5WWD-BKSW.
13 Eligibility criteria for ACPs and other voter privacy initiatives vary by state. For example, California
allows voters that meet certain qualifications to register as “confidential voter[s]” for a variety of
reasons, including personal safety, life threatening circumstances as determined by a California court,
and a person’s role as a public safety officer, election worker, and candidate or elected official. Cal.
Elec. Code §§ 2166, 2166.5, 2166.7, 2166.8, 2166.9. Colorado, meanwhile, permits eligible voters to
register to keep their addresses private under two different confidentiality programs: (1) the Address
Confidentiality Program protects survivors of stalking, sexual assault, and domestic violence with a
legal substitute address and mail forwarding, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-30-2108(3), 8 Colo. Code Regs.
§ 1505-1:2.10; and (2) the state’s Confidential Voter status designation allows eligible individuals who
will be exposed to criminal harassment or bodily harm to have their voting information withheld from
the public, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(3.5)(b). New Jersey’s statewide program provides a legal
substitute address for victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, and
reproductive health patients and providers, N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 47:4-1–47:4-6; and Washington’s ACP
offers protection not just to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking, but
also to certain criminal justice affiliates, election officials, and protected health care workers, Wash.
Rev. Code §§ 40.24.010–40.24.110.
5
the state provides a substitute address for the survivor’s use. The survivor’s mail is
forwarded from that substitute address to their actual address, with the actual
address being known only to (and kept confidential by) the relevant state agency. In
the context of voter registration, the survivor’s actual address is still used to
determine district designations and other relevant criteria.
The technical mechanisms through which this is accomplished vary by state.
In Florida, for example, survivors enrolled in the state’s ACP can register to vote
securely but must then vote by mail. Fla. Stat. § 741.406. While their true addresses
are used by appropriate officials to determine which specific local ballot to send to the
voter, their registration is entered manually in a locked file and not entered into the
state’s typical voter registration system.14 The ballot is then mailed to the state’s
substitute address, which, by design, differs from the voter’s confidential actual
address.15 In New Mexico, meanwhile,
Qualified participants in the Intimate Partner Violence Survivor
Suffrage Act program vote exclusively by mailed absentee ballot and are
assigned a random identifier and a verification code for each election.
The administrator of the program requests from each appropriate
county clerk a ballot to be used by the voter-participant registered to
vote in that county. The request does not reveal the name or the address
of the voter-participant, but rather, only the random identifier and
verification code associated with the voter-participant.
Vigil Decl. ¶ 18, Dkt. 4-16.
14 Gisela Salas & Maria Matthews, The State of Florida Address Confidentiality Program, Fla. Off. of
the Att’y Gen. 12 (May 23, 2012), https://perma.cc/EDF6-KJLP.
15 Id. at 13.
6
Regardless of the specifics, all ACPs impliedly reflect the same concern noted
by Washington, the first state to adopt such a program: “[P]ersons attempting to
escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, or
stalking frequently establish new addresses in order to prevent their assailants or
probable assailants from finding them,” Wash. Rev. Code § 40.24.010, and the fear of
being found and harmed should never burden one’s exercise of their fundamental
right to vote. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 741.401 (reflecting a similar purpose).
II. The Final Rule’s mail ballot list requirement is incompatible
with address confidentiality programs, and its rushed
implementation will disenfranchise countless survivors.
The importance of ACPs to survivors seeking to exercise their right to vote is
thus difficult to overstate. Even USPS acknowledges that “survivors of domestic and
sexual violence and/or stalking may experience significant privacy concerns related
to the voter registration process” and that “[t]he fear of being located may deter such
victims from voting in person, and even from registering to vote.” 91 Fed. Reg. at
54989. But, as the district court found, the Final Rule “directly conflicts” with these
programs. App. 39a. Applicants cannot credibly argue otherwise.
The Final Rule bars postal workers from mailing ballots from states to voters
unless the relevant election jurisdiction has, in advance, provided the name and
registered mail addresses of all voters to USPS for inclusion on its web-based “portal.”
91 Fed. Reg. at 54991. But information on address confidentiality program
participants is generally not included in public voter files,16 and Applicants have
16 USPS Rulemaking Analysis, Institute for Responsive Government (June 15, 2026),
https://perma.cc/GJC6-5EQF.
7
provided no guidance to the many state election officials who have expressed concern
that they “cannot both comply with the requirements to submit the names and
addresses of every [state] voter for enrollment in USPS’s Mail Ballot List and also
comply with privacy requirements outlined in state law regarding confidential
voters.” Southard Decl. ¶ 22, Dkt. 4-1 (California).
After several Amici organizations raised similar concerns during the
rulemaking process, USPS stated that the Final Rule “requires that the name and
address used on the outside of a ballot envelope be submitted to the Portal” and
“would not require that confidential information known only to the state be provided.”
91 Fed. Reg. at 54989.
This is inaccurate. The Final Rule does require that confidential information
known only to the state to be provided, and risks exposing survivors’ confidential
addresses in several ways.
First, the Final Rule requires states to disclose to USPS the fact—or, at
minimum, facts sufficient to infer—that specific named voters are enrolled in the
address confidentiality programs. The very fact that the state would be required to
upload the substitute address into the USPS portal discloses to the USPS that the
voter is an ACP participant, by tying a named voter to an address that is recognizably
the state’s ACP substitute address. Exposing program participation itself to a
massive new federal database unjustifiably intrudes on survivors’ privacy and safety
and puts them in danger.
8
Second, many address confidentiality programs bar states from sharing any
personally identifying information regarding participants with other entities,
including state and federal agencies, absent specific procedures. See, e.g., Sarah
Copeland Hanzas, Sec’y of State, State of Vermont, Public Comment re Proposed
Rulemaking (July 2, 2026), Dkt. 4-22 at 22, 24 (explaining that Vermont election
officials are “not permitted to release a participant’s address to any entity, including
state and federal agencies, unless a specific process is followed”) [hereinafter
“Vermont Comment”].
Third, voluminous evidence in the district court reflects that, in the absence of
any guidance from USPS about how to list confidential mailing addresses in the yet-
to-be-revealed portal, implementation of the Rule will force state election officials
either to violate state law (by uploading information protected by confidentiality
programs) or to disenfranchise ACP participants completely (by declining to upload
the same information, virtually guaranteeing that USPS will not deliver mail ballots
to those eligible voters). The portal in question is not yet operational, Monteith Decl.
¶ 3, No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT, Dkt. 280-1, and Applicants have still made “no effort” to
“explain how States can both comply with the requirement to upload voter
information, including addresses, to the USPS portal without violating their state
laws and disclosing confidential voter information.” App. 39a.
Applicants’ cursory rejoinder that “[t]he Rule does not displace a single State
election law,” Defs.’ Br. Opposing Prelim. Inj. at 1, No. 1:26-cv-13917-IT, Dkt. 235,
stands opposite multiple sworn statements from state election officials saying
9
otherwise. Arizona’s Secretary of State, for example, confirmed that the Rule “would
force elections officials to violate numerous Arizona statutes, including the legal
requirement to protect voter registration information and secured voters such as . . .
victims of sexual violence and stalking.” Fontes Decl. ¶ 12, Dkt. 4-5 (citing Ariz. Rev.
Stat. §§ 16-153, 41-165). Election officials “will violate Colorado law if they upload
the personal identifying information of confidential Colorado voters to the Federal
Ballot Portal.” Andrew Kline, Deputy Sec’y of State, State of Colorado, Public
Comment re Proposed Rulemaking (June 26, 2026), Dkt. 4-6 at 28, 35 (citing Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(8) and Colo. Elect. R. 2.10.3.B.b.). And in Vermont, election
officials are “not permitted to release a participant’s address to any entity, including
state and federal agencies, unless a specific process is followed.” Vermont Comment,
Dkt. 4-22 at 22, 24 (emphasis added). California state law likewise prohibits including
confidential voters’ information on any roster or list, including USPS’s Mail Ballot
List. Southard Decl. ¶ 22, Dkt. 4-1 (citing Cal. Elec. Code §§ 2166(b)(2), 2166.5(b)(2),
2166.7(d)(2), 2166.8(d)(1), 2166.9(d)(1)). As a result, individuals registered as
“confidential voters”17 in California “will be prohibited from casting a mail ballot
unless they voluntarily withdraw their confidentiality, which could put these voters
in a position of choosing their personal safety over their right to vote.” Id.; see also id.
¶ 33 (warning that “California’s numerous confidential voters, who by law cannot be
17 California law allows voters that meet certain qualifications to register as “confidential voters” for
a variety of reasons, including personal safety, life threatening circumstances as determined by a
California court, and a person’s role as a public safety officer, election worker, or candidate or elected
official. See Cal. Elec. Code §§ 2166, 2166.5, 2166.7, 2166.8, 2166.9.
10
included on the USPS Mail Ballot List,” are among “[s]everal categories of voters
[that] may be wholly denied the opportunity to vote”).
The risk that implementation of the Rule will disenfranchise survivors is not
speculative. The record before the district court made clear that, if state election
officials fail to upload the personal identifying information of confidential voters to
the USPS Ballot Portal, “the Postal Service will refuse to deliver mail ballots to or
from these voters.” Dkt. 4-6 at 28, 35. In Colorado alone, the Final Rule is expected
to “cause the Postal Service to erroneously refuse to deliver mail ballots to at least
150,000 eligible but confidential Colorado voters.” Id. at 36.
Such outcomes are particularly worrisome because many states require
participants in address confidentiality programs to vote by mail. In Arizona, for
example, “poll books do not include eligible persons or ACP participants, as required
by law and for their safety.” Adrian Fontes, Ariz. Sec’y of State, Public Comment re
Proposed Rulemaking (July 2, 2026), Dkt. 4-5 at 32, 37 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-
153(A)). The Final Rule would render those voters both unable to vote by mail
(because doing so would “require disclosure of their protected information and
potentially their location to their abuser”) and unable to vote in person (because not
appearing in poll books renders an individual ineligible to vote a non-provisional
ballot in person). Id. at 37. These and similar concerns led the Arizona Secretary of
State to caution that the Rule “discriminates against protected voters who must
choose between having their confidential information disclosed or forsaking their
right to vote,” id. at 32, and the Office of the New Mexico Secretary of State to warn
11
that the Rule would disenfranchise voters enrolled in the state’s Intimate Partner
Violence Survivor Suffrage program, Vigil Decl. ¶¶ 14–15, Dkt. 4-16.18
Applicants’ dismissal of these concerns is even more egregious given that the
Rule was prompted by an Executive Order that directed federal agencies to prioritize
the investigation and prosecution “of State and local officials . . . who issue Federal
ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” Exec. Order No. 14399,
§ 2(b), Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, 91 Fed.
Reg. 17125, 17126 (Mar. 31, 2026); see also id. § 5 (providing that “State or local
election officials . . . [and] individuals involved in the administration of Federal
elections; or public [] entities engaged in the printing, production, shipment, or
distribution of ballots may be referred to the Department of Justice for consideration
of investigation or charges under” various federal criminal laws).
These risks are compounded by the rushed implementation of the Rule. In
sworn declarations filed with the district court, election officials in various states
18 Because perpetrators of violence sometimes work or have connections in government agencies, ACPs
closely guard knowledge of participants’ actual physical addresses even within public agencies, and
individual survivors rely on each state’s representations about which government agencies will have
access to ACP information when determining whether or not it is safe for them to participate in the
program. The Final Rule, however, instructs states to authorize an unlimited number of election
officials to use the USPS Ballot Portal and provides no assurances regarding what information will be
available to each of these “authorized” users. See 39 C.F.R. pt. 111, Supplementary Information at 14.
With respect to USPS workers themselves, it is no answer that 39 U.S.C. § 412 prohibits disclosure of
lists of names and addresses. Recent history illustrates major privacy breaches by insiders at the
Social Security Administration. See AFSCME v. Trump, No. CV ELH-25-0596, 2026 WL 1842617, at
*5 (D. Md. June 26, 2026) (referencing whistleblower reports alleging that a member of the
Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) exfiltrated records for more than 500 million
Americans from Social Security systems of records and that DOGE improperly uploaded copies of
Social Security data, including personally identifying information, to a third-party digital cloud
service). And a bedrock principle of our nation’s privacy scheme is to keep sensitive information siloed
where it must be held rather than sharing it widely or centrally across government agencies. See
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-3501, 2026 WL 1784297, at *1-
*4 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026), application for stay pending, No. 26A308 (filed Sep. 8, 2026) (describing
Congress’s concerns about a “centralized data bank”).
12
expressed concern about the need to immediately prepare and update guidance for
use by local elections offices, including guidance on “confidential voters,” Southard
Decl. ¶ 20, Dkt. 4-1 (California); “how to process voter registration information for
voters whose information is protected by statute because they are police officers,
judges, or victims of sexual violence or stalking,” Fontes Decl. ¶ 19, Dkt. 4-5 (Arizona);
“the Portal’s interplay with [state] confidential voter program[s],” Rudy Decl. ¶ 24,
Dkt. 4-6 (Colorado); “proper treatment of voters” enrolled in ACPs that “treat[] as
confidential the residence addresses of voters who are at risk of domestic violence or
human trafficking,” Flynn Decl. ¶ 17, Dkt. 4-11 (Maine); and “how to navigate unique
voter use-cases such as voters who are part of [ACPs],” Wlaschin Decl. ¶ 20, Dkt. 4-3
(Nevada). See also, e.g., Brater Decl. ¶ 37, Dkt. 4-13 (Michigan); Linnell Decl. ¶ 19,
Dkt. 4-14 (Minnesota); Barber Decl. ¶ 19, Dkt. 4-15 (New Jersey); Vigil Decl. ¶ 24,
Dkt. 4-16 (New Mexico); Dawson Decl. ¶ 19, ECF 4-19 (Oregon); Marks Decl. ¶ 19,
Dkt. 4-20 (Pennsylvania); Hanzas Decl. ¶ 19, Dkt. 4-22 (Vermont); Holmes Decl. ¶ 36,
Dkt. 4-4 (Washington). Crucially, the paucity of information provided by USPS has
forced some states to “begin these preparations without themselves having complete
information about how the USPS portal will work.” Brater Decl. ¶ 37, Dkt. 4-13
(Michigan). Other states “cannot even begin to undertake” the necessary preparation
“until the USPS Ballot Portal goes live.” Dawson Decl. ¶ 19, ECF 4-19 (Oregon). In
the meantime, as the Secretary of State for the State of Vermont said in a sworn
declaration filed with the district court, “The USPS has not addressed any
implications for our voter confidentiality program.” Hanzas Decl. ¶ 19, Dkt. 4-22.
13
III. The Final Rule discriminates against eligible voters who are
victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking in
violation of 39 U.S.C. § 403.
Federal law provides that USPS shall not “make any undue or unreasonable
discrimination among users of the mails.” 39 U.S.C. § 403(c). But the Final Rule
discriminates against survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking
in two ways.
First, unlike other voters who vote by mail-in ballot, ACP participants will be
forced to choose between putting themselves and their family members in danger (by
having their confidential information disclosed) or being disenfranchised. See supra
page 11. Second, because survivors are more likely than the average voter to move or
register immediately prior to an election due to violence necessitating a change in
location, the proposed Rule is likely to disproportionately burden their free exercise
even if they are not yet registered with a state address confidentiality program.
“The first 18 months after leaving an abusive relationship is statistically the
most dangerous time for survivors, with 75% of homicides occurring upon separation
and a 75% chance of increased violence for the next two years.”19 During that time,
survivors may change housing multiple times to protect their safety. Moreover, some
survivors of sexual violence may delay updating public records until appropriate
safety measures are in place, particularly when the perpetrator: (1) knows their
identity and/or where they live; (2) has legitimate access to their personal
information; or (3) continues to hold a position of authority over them. As survivors
19 Mary Roche, The SAVE Act and Other Voting Barriers for Survivors of Domestic Violence, League of
Women Voters (April 15, 2026), https://perma.cc/VCM4-XNQG.
14
relocate after an assault, transfer schools, change jobs, or separate from an institution
where the perpetrator remains present, publicly linking a new address to government
records may increase the risk of retaliation, intimidation, or unwanted contact. For
example, before Michigan adopted its ACP, one survivor seeking protection from an
abusive ex-husband purchased a home under her mother’s name, only for her abuser
to find her using voter registration information.20
A survivor’s urgent need to relocate for safety reasons can occur at any time—
including the period right before an election. At the same time, many states allow
citizens to register to vote and request mail ballots very close to election day.21
Against that background, the Rule’s deadlines for states to upload voter lists are
unrealistic, unreasonable, and unlawful. Under the Final Rule, states must “enroll”
voters “at least 30 days before the date of the federal election, to the extent
practicable, or by the date on which mail-in or absentee ballots may begin to be mailed
under state law.”22 While states may make “supplemental submissions to enroll
additional individuals or modify prior submissions until the last day that ballots may
be mailed out to individuals under state law,”23 that provision is inadequate to protect
the vote of survivors who move, register, or enroll in an ACP during that window. The
supplemental-submission provision imposes significant burdens on state and local
election administrators who are, at that point in an election cycle, already
20 Anna Liz Nichols, Michigan launches address confidentiality program to protect violence survivors,
Michigan Advance (Sept. 13, 2023), https://perma.cc/RXN9-Q2CW.
21 See Table 5: Applying for an Absentee Ballot, Including Third-Party Registration Drives, Nat’l Conf.
of State Legislatures (Feb. 24, 2026), https://perma.cc/65YL-X5RU.
22 91 Fed. Reg. at 54991 (incorporated by reference into 39 C.F.R. § 111.1).
23 Id.
15
overworked, overburdened, and understaffed, and it is likely to engender technical
and administrative errors that are no fault of the would-be voter. Because survivors
are especially likely to move or register immediately before an election, the Rule is
likely to disproportionately burden that community’s exercise of the right to vote. 24
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny Applicants’ request for a stay
of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Date: September 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
ALETHEA ANNE SWIFT
Counsel of Record
RONALD FEIN
BRIAN D. NETTER
Democracy Forward Foundation
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
(202) 383-0794
aswift@democracyforward.org
Counsel for Amici Curiae
24 Moreover, survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking of all backgrounds benefit
from ACPs and the protections they provide. However, survivors of color, immigrant survivors, and
survivors who are system-impacted often face heightened fear of government registries and federal
data collection, language access hurdles that make it difficult to navigate complex voting procedures,
and increased housing instability and other systemic economic barriers that force frequent moves. The
burdens of navigating these bureaucratic hurdles fall hardest on Black, Indigenous, immigrant, and
low-income survivors. If the Final Rule were implemented, especially in the rushed manner
contemplated by Applicants, those populations would likely feel its burdens most acutely.
16