Trump Vows To End Mail-In Ballots: What WI Voters Need To Know

President Donald Trump vowed on his social media platform this week to make changes in how U.S. elections are conducted, including one that would end mail-in voting for the 2026 midterms.

Trump pledged on his social media site that he would do away with both mail voting and voting machines. Trump’s post came after the president told Fox News that Russian President Vladimir Putin, in their Friday meeting in Alaska, echoed his grievances about mail voting and the 2020 election.

Trump has claimed there is "massive frau" due to mail voting, when in fact voting fraud in the U.S. is rare. As an example, an Associated Press review after the 2020 election found fewer than 475 cases of potential fraud in the six battleground states where he disputed his loss, far too few to tip that election to Trump.

In Wisconsin, officials rejected Trump’s claims as unfounded.

Wisconsin Elections Commission chair Ann Jacobs said the state’s voting machines are tested before and after every election and have consistently passed audits.

She added that mail voting is both popular and secure, citing studies showing fraud rates between just 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Jacobs also warned that replacing tabulators with hand counts would slow results for days or weeks and likely increase errors.

States Run Elections

Constitutionally, Trump is on shaky ground. Unlike in many countries, elections are run by states.

Trump claimed in his social media post that states “are merely an agent for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes” and must do what the federal government “as represented by the President of the United States” tells them to do.

Election lawyers said that’s a misrepresentation of the U.S. Constitution.

A Patchwork Of State Laws

Two states with vote-by-mail elections, Washington and Oregon, are challenging an earlier executive order by Trump that sought to require that all ballots be received by Election Day (not just postmarked).

The states argue that the president has no such authority, and they are seeking a declaration from a federal judge in Seattle that their postmark deadlines do not conflict with federal law setting the date of U.S. elections.

Six other states and Washington, D.C., allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah and Vermont.

States have a patchwork of election laws that accommodate their individual needs and circumstances.

Counties in North Dakota and Nebraska can opt for elections by mail, and nine states — Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming — allow specific small elections to be conducted by mail. Additionally, Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey and New Mexico permit mostly mail elections for certain small jurisdictions.

What’s The Issue With Voting Machines?

Trump said in his post that voting machines are more expensive than “Watermark Paper,” a little-used system that has gained favor and investments among some voting conspiracy theorists who believe it would help prevent fraudulent ballots from being introduced into the vote count.

However, watermark paper would still have to be fed through some sort of tabulating machine.

While some jurisdictions still have voters use electronic ballot-marking devices to cast their votes, the majority of U.S. voters already vote on paper ballots, creating an auditable record of votes that provides an extra safeguard for election security.

What Happens Next?

Only Congress can implement new election rules under the Constitution. While the document is clear that state entities determine the “time, place and manner of elections, it does allow Congress to “make” or “alter” rules for congressional and presidential elections. Importantly, the president isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution’s list of entities with powers over elections.

Although Republicans control Congress, it’s unclear that even his party would want to eliminate voting machines nationwide, possibly delaying vote tallies in their own races by weeks or months. Even if they did, legislation would likely be unable to pass because Democrats could filibuster it in the U.S. Senate.

The Associated Press contributed reporting.