President Trump’s latest vow to abolish broad mail-in voting via executive order has ignited a debate within his own party. While election integrity is a legitimate concern, several Republicans are cautioning against sweeping bans that could undermine voter access and strategic electoral flexibility.
Michigan House Majority Leader Bryan Posthumus, a Trump supporter, is among the leery:
We shouldn’t just go off and get rid of voting by mail... I’ve always been a proponent that it should be easy to vote and hard to cheat.
Posthumus argues that the weaknesses of the system need to be addressed, while not scrapping mail-in ballots entirely.
Vermont GOP chair Paul Dame agrees:
I don’t think anyone supports a complete elimination. That would disenfranchise men and women overseas. I’m sure that’s not his intention.
The goal, they say, is to safeguard election integrity by ensuring transparency and accountability while avoiding decrees that may exceed constitutional authority.
Despite the opinion of his critics, Trump did not actually say he wants to ban all mail-in ballots. On August 30, he wrote on Truth Social:
Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS! I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!!
Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military.
Earlier in August, Trump announced he would “lead a movement to eliminate mail-in voting and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.” He said the action would restore “honesty” to the elections.
While election security is a valid concern, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the president power to regulate voting methods. Under Article I, Section 4, known as the Elections Clause:
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 choosing Senators.
This clause applies exclusively to federal congressional elections for the House and Senate, but presidential elections are addressed in Article II, Section 1, and in the 12th Amendment. Power to determine how electors are chosen is given to the state legislatures. While Congress may set the date of the election, the Constitution leaves the process for appointing electors, including voting methods, to the states.
State and local elections are governed almost entirely by state constitutions and statutes. Each state determines how its own elections are conducted, including rules for absentee or mail-in voting, voter ID requirements, and registration procedures.
The problems of voter fraud do need to be addressed, but unless the Constitution is amended or a new constitutional convention writes a new one, the president has no constitutional basis to ban mail-in voting nationwide by executive order.
Any such changes must originate in state legislatures or, for congressional elections, through laws passed by Congress. Achieving the president's hoped-for reform hits a snag not only by constitutional mandate, but from liberal-run blue states whose leaders see no need for change, either because they don't believe fraud exists in great enough numbers to sway elections, or because they are happy with the prospect that fraud could bring for their side.
From a liberty-first standpoint, the best response is reform, not prohibition. Enhancements like voter ID, verifiable paper trails, and security audits should be embraced. At the same time, maintaining options for soldiers overseas and disabled or remote voters aligns with American values of freedom and access.
