Editorial: Supreme Court refuses to let Trump sabotage elections

The Seattle Times editorial board, The Seattle Times on Sep 20, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with democracy last week when it put a stop, at least temporarily, to President Donald Trump’s yearslong attempt to derail free and fair elections.

In an unsigned emergency decision, the court’s 7-2 majority (Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented) upheld an injunction and ruled that “the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction.”

That injunction was ordered and later extended by a federal judge in Boston. It put a halt to Trump’s executive order to use the United States Postal Service to essentially referee mail-in voting for the 2026 election.

Washington was among 24 states to sue the Trump administration over the executive order, which called for the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and have the USPS use it to determine who gets a mail-in ballot. It also called for uniform envelopes to mail ballots in all states. The high court’s decision was sound and based on the Constitution, which gives states the authority to oversee elections.

But the celebration of last week’s victory must be brief, based on recent comments by U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“Of course we’re going to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, as we always do. That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to do everything in this administration that we can to make sure that there are free and fair elections,” Blanche said. For Trump, that means to keep trying to disrupt future elections and create chaos and confusion.

Many expect Trump to ramp up the tactics come November, including possibly using the National Guard or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at polling places in swing states where in-person voting is the dominant voting method.

“Our office will remain vigilant around any other attempts by this administration to meddle in the current election while we continue the longer court fight against the administration’s illegal attack on mail-in voting,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a news release.

Democratic, Republican and independent voters should let this decision marinate with them as they contemplate their vote in the November election.

If the Supreme Court refused to let Trump sabotage the election, what does it say about the elected officials who are OK with his attempts to dismantle Washington’s main system of voting, either through their support or appalling silence?

_____