Record · the original document behind a story
New Mail Voting Rules Moved Forward Despite USPS Officials' Concerns
Published by ProPublica on September 2, 2026.
A second account, separate from the whistleblower: a person familiar with the internal meetings, and two attendees of a committee meeting on the Maricopa example.
The cited passage, with surrounding source text
… <p>During meetings in which top USPS officials discussed how to comply with the executive order, there was much discussion about the controversial nature of what they needed to do, according to the person familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. The focus was on limiting the impact to voters while also complying. One repeated concern regarded how to avoid invalidating an entire batch of ballots if one voter among thousands couldn’t be confirmed as eligible. Some in the meetings recommended trying to limit harm to voters by not rejecting the entire batch, according to the person familiar with the discussions. Despite that, according to the whistleblower who contacted Blumenthal, the directive to reject entire batches if they included just one unverified ballot moved forward.</p> <p>“As presently designed, if even one bar code on one single ballot in a bulk-mailing of 10,000 ballots fails to properly scan during the verification process, the entire batch is rejected and sent back to the state — effectively stopping the ballots from being mailed to voters,” the whistleblower wrote.</p> …
Read the original · Open the copy we saved
Where we use it
- The administration asks the Supreme Court to lift a new block on mail-ballot rules · cited for the second account of the internal meetings: the Maricopa example and the recommendation not to reject whole batches
About this saved copy
The fingerprint identifies the saved text used for this record. A different copy has a different fingerprint.
- Text fingerprint (SHA-256)
9558497d09f15ebf13e03c62675d4e5d588cca9bc2da28153ff5c4f298739190
Timeline entries this record anchors: Three amicus briefs on the 26A305 docket.