The Supreme Court gave voters and state election officials a significant reprieve Monday by refusing to let the Trump administration’s new Postal Service restrictions take effect before the November midterm elections. Seven justices voted to deny the administration’s request to suspend a preliminary injunction blocking a rule that would have required states to use specified ballot envelopes and submit information about mail-in voters to the Postal Service. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. The unsigned ruling stated that the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
The Constitution’s Elections Clause assigns responsibility for regulating congressional elections principally to the states, subject to Congress’s authority to make or alter those regulations. It gives the President no independent authority to prescribe election procedures. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution clearly 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.
While many of us breathed a sigh of relief upon hearing the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning, the New York Times issued a stark warning that the Trump administration was not done with its efforts to influence November’s ballot. In this case, the rule would have required states to submit information about voters planning to vote by mail and to use specified ballot envelopes with assigned individualized barcodes. The Postal Service could have returned noncompliant mailings to election offices. Election officials warned that rushed implementation could prevent millions from receiving ballots and potentially disenfranchise many voters.
There is still much concern about efforts to disrupt in-person voting with the placement of aggressive poll watchers and the possible deployment of ICE agents or military personnel. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned election officials in a July speech that they could face jail time if they failed to comply with the administration’s directives or properly safeguard computer systems.
The administration’s onslaught on the nation’s electoral process is intended not only to disrupt voting in selected states and counties, but also to sow doubt in the public’s mind about election integrity. A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found trust in government has declined in many areas, including elections, where just 34 percent of US adults trust government certification of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit,” slightly down from 40 percent in 2024.
Back in 2018, during the first Trump administration, CRISP raised the question during our Social Work Day on the Hill activities, “Can Social Work Help Save Democracy?” A presentation at the fall meeting of the National Association of Deans and Directors (NADD) led to the creation of a task force that endorsed the idea of creating the Social Work Democracy Project, which was subsequently organized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit project designed to coordinate the profession’s efforts to defend and strengthen democracy.
In 2020, with the election of President Joe Biden, many of us believed we had dodged a bullet and perhaps seen the last of Donald Trump. We allowed the effort to lose momentum. That was a mistake. We know now that preserving democracy is not a campaign that can be suspended after a favorable election.
Can social work help save democracy? We cannot do it alone, but we cannot remain on the sidelines. Social workers are present in schools, health systems, public agencies, universities, nonprofit organizations, and communities nationwide. Through nonpartisan voter education and registration, accurate public communication, research, policy advocacy, and protection against intimidation, we help translate democratic values into democratic participation. The Social Work Democracy Project was created to coordinate that work.
The Social Work Leadership Roundtable has agreed to include a discussion of the project during its fall meeting later this month. It could lead to a continuing national strategy with shared resources, organizational commitments, state and local partnerships, and measurable goals. Democracy requires constant vigilance and institutions that remain engaged after Election Day. Our profession and institutions should be among them.