WEBVTT - Legal Assault on the Post Office Changes

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:06.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Laws with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to

0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:09.319
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. Ahead in this hour,

0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:13.600
<v Speaker 1>the legal attacks on the Post Office escalate. President Trump

0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>wants the Supreme Court to resolve with one of his

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:20.720
<v Speaker 1>Twitter problems, TikTok goes on the offensive, and Aport tosses

0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:24.320
<v Speaker 1>Scott Peterson's death sentence. This week, New York and New

0:00:24.400 --> 0:00:27.319
<v Speaker 1>Jersey became the latest states to sue President Trump and

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>his Postmaster General Lewis to joy over major changes to

0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:35.800
<v Speaker 1>postal service operations that resulted in mail delays across the country.

0:00:36.080 --> 0:00:39.280
<v Speaker 1>It's the third multi state lawsuit file this month over

0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.680
<v Speaker 1>the changes at the Post Office that the Democratic Attorneys

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>General claim were meant to sabotage the election. In congressional testimony,

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:50.159
<v Speaker 1>to Joyce said he'll pause the operational changes, but he

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:53.640
<v Speaker 1>told Democratic Congressman Roe Kanna that he will not restore

0:00:53.680 --> 0:00:56.960
<v Speaker 1>the mail sorting machines. Even if the machines, in your perspective,

0:00:57.000 --> 0:00:58.720
<v Speaker 1>don't do anything. What is a harm to do it

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.720
<v Speaker 1>to election day in Washington? And it makes plenty of

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:04.319
<v Speaker 1>sense to me, it makes none. You haven't explained why

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.240
<v Speaker 1>and then final questions and not needed. That's why. But

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>if it will restore people's faith in a democracy and

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>avoid a polarized election, a billion, Get me the billion,

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 1>and I'll put the machines in joining me. Is election

0:01:17.360 --> 0:01:20.959
<v Speaker 1>law expert in Nate Personally, a professor at Stanford Law School.

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.759
<v Speaker 1>What are the grounds for these lawsuits? The States are

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:29.680
<v Speaker 1>suing the Post Office and the federal government because the

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:33.880
<v Speaker 1>decisions that were made with respect to changes in the

0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:37.720
<v Speaker 1>postal system were allegedly not done in compliance with the

0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:40.920
<v Speaker 1>applicable law that regulates the post Office. So they have

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.360
<v Speaker 1>a series of claims under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement

0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:47.960
<v Speaker 1>Act to post the Reorganization Act, and other measures. And

0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:50.840
<v Speaker 1>the basic idea is that you can't make these abrupt

0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:52.680
<v Speaker 1>changes in the way that you did. You have to

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:56.880
<v Speaker 1>do in a more considered way. When the Postmaster General testified,

0:01:57.440 --> 0:02:01.279
<v Speaker 1>he said that he would suspend any aditional changes until

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 1>after the election, but he wouldn't reverse changes that have

0:02:04.760 --> 0:02:09.040
<v Speaker 1>already taken place. Does that make any of the lawsuit moot?

0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:12.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it moots the lawsuit. I think that

0:02:12.240 --> 0:02:14.919
<v Speaker 1>it is still the case that the states are trying

0:02:15.000 --> 0:02:18.440
<v Speaker 1>to get the post office to speed up the mail,

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:21.040
<v Speaker 1>and they're trying to use every arrow in their quiver

0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:23.000
<v Speaker 1>to do that. You know, it remains to be seen

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:24.840
<v Speaker 1>if the court is going to throw this out on

0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>standing grounds, because these are sort of coherent legal theories.

0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:31.280
<v Speaker 1>But I don't think the cases mooted just because he's

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 1>rolling back some of the changes, because he said he's

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:36.080
<v Speaker 1>not going to roll back all of them. There's some

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 1>like the removal of sorting machines that are not going

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:42.840
<v Speaker 1>to be reinstated. This is the third lawsuit filed this month,

0:02:43.000 --> 0:02:46.640
<v Speaker 1>covering about twenty three states. Now why three different lawsuits?

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:50.799
<v Speaker 1>Are there any substantive differences among them, or is it

0:02:50.840 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 1>just to take advantage of different courts. Well, I think

0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:58.480
<v Speaker 1>the changes and the differences between the lawsuits come in

0:02:58.639 --> 0:03:01.360
<v Speaker 1>part because of the different visions of the attorneys general

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>who are filing these cases. But I think also it

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:06.280
<v Speaker 1>has to do with different legal theories. Some of the

0:03:06.320 --> 0:03:09.359
<v Speaker 1>other cases are grounded on a right to vote theory

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.640
<v Speaker 1>that basically what the Post Office is doing is violating

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.360
<v Speaker 1>the voting rights of people who want to vote by mail,

0:03:15.520 --> 0:03:18.320
<v Speaker 1>whereas some of these lawsuits are more on the procedures

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:20.960
<v Speaker 1>that were used in the determinations that were made by

0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:24.520
<v Speaker 1>the Post Office to make these changes. In the Pennsylvania lawsuits,

0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:28.079
<v Speaker 1>the United States responded that the states don't have standing

0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:30.520
<v Speaker 1>to sue the federal government, which you mentioned before, on

0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:34.840
<v Speaker 1>behalf of citizens, because any future injuries would be speculative.

0:03:35.560 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 1>Is that likely a winning argument? Well, that's a typical

0:03:38.560 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 1>argument that you get in cases like this. There are

0:03:40.880 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 1>only certain situations in which the states are allowed to

0:03:44.120 --> 0:03:46.800
<v Speaker 1>sue the federal government. And the question is are they

0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>suing in their sovereign capacity sort of as states? Are

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 1>they suing on behalf of their citizens? And there is

0:03:52.800 --> 0:03:56.840
<v Speaker 1>a famous case dealing with ep A regulations Massachusetts versus E.

0:03:56.920 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 1>P A a while ago that weighed in on that topic.

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:02.840
<v Speaker 1>And you know, this is one of these ongoing questions,

0:04:03.000 --> 0:04:06.040
<v Speaker 1>especially in these highly charged political cases, which is whether

0:04:06.080 --> 0:04:08.600
<v Speaker 1>the states have sort of independent cause of action, whether

0:04:08.640 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 1>they have been injured in a concrete way that's not

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:15.960
<v Speaker 1>speculative in your legal opinion, To the states have standing here, Well,

0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:19.640
<v Speaker 1>I think it really does depend on how close the

0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 1>link is from what the Post Office is doing to

0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:26.760
<v Speaker 1>the effects on individual people who are receiving and sending mail.

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 1>So that's sort of an advidentiary question. We still don't

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:34.239
<v Speaker 1>really know the effect of the individual policy changes, although

0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:37.160
<v Speaker 1>it looks like from the graphs that were submitted as

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:39.839
<v Speaker 1>part of the litigation that there was a significant drop

0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:42.520
<v Speaker 1>off and delay in mail starting in June when a

0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>lot of these changes happened. I think that someone will

0:04:45.680 --> 0:04:49.279
<v Speaker 1>have standing to litigate these cases, and the question is

0:04:49.279 --> 0:04:52.040
<v Speaker 1>whether it could be resolved before the election. I'm skeptical

0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:54.880
<v Speaker 1>that that will happen, but you know, as in many

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 1>political cases, the main force here is to just expose

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 1>what the Post Office is doing and to try to

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 1>get them to reverse course. That was my next question.

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Can they move these cases fast enough to get them

0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:10.719
<v Speaker 1>resolved and any changes put into place before the election.

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:13.600
<v Speaker 1>I think the primary solution here is a political one,

0:05:13.760 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that there's enough pressure that's put on

0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:19.359
<v Speaker 1>officials so that they deliver the mail on time, especially

0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>with respect to the election mail. And I would be

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.719
<v Speaker 1>surprised if you had a court order that sort of

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:29.160
<v Speaker 1>reversed some of these policies, because you know, as frustrating

0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:31.599
<v Speaker 1>as it is, it's not like you have a legal

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:34.760
<v Speaker 1>right to have a letter sent and delivered to you.

0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Within three days or something like that. And so you know,

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:39.719
<v Speaker 1>we've had late mail for for many years. The question

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:42.040
<v Speaker 1>is when does it become so late and the process

0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 1>by which they've made these decisions become so arbitrary that

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 1>you have a legal claim. And we're seeing similar kinds

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.880
<v Speaker 1>of lawsuits in the immigration realm and other settings. Given

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the administration has made serious changes to

0:05:57.400 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 1>the administrative state, I have to ask you if there's

0:06:00.080 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>any truth to President Trump's repeated claims that widespread mail

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.320
<v Speaker 1>and voting leads to ballot fraud. The debate over mail

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:12.200
<v Speaker 1>in voting is over whether you're a Republican secretary of

0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:16.080
<v Speaker 1>state Democratic secretary of state. There is broad consensus once

0:06:16.120 --> 0:06:19.719
<v Speaker 1>you get away from the national debate, there's broad consensus

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:21.560
<v Speaker 1>that male voting can be done in a way that

0:06:21.800 --> 0:06:24.279
<v Speaker 1>is not leading to fraud. We don't have a significant

0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 1>history of fraud in the states that have male voting,

0:06:27.720 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>and for that matter, these states, almost all the battleground

0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>states are moving to absentee balloting um, which is the

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:36.599
<v Speaker 1>kind of balloting that and voting that the president and

0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:40.200
<v Speaker 1>his family do. So I think that it's become a

0:06:40.320 --> 0:06:43.200
<v Speaker 1>distraction really to start talking about all vote by mail,

0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 1>since the most important states are gonna be just doing

0:06:45.200 --> 0:06:49.360
<v Speaker 1>absentee voting. Well, President Trump is at times the master

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:55.920
<v Speaker 1>of distraction. Will it lead though too inevitable lawsuits if

0:06:55.960 --> 0:07:00.919
<v Speaker 1>he loses about mail and balloting and fraud? If the

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 1>election is close, you can be sure that there will

0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:08.719
<v Speaker 1>be many lawsuits challenging many aspects of the election infrastructure.

0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:11.800
<v Speaker 1>And given that you'll have roughly half of the American

0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:16.520
<v Speaker 1>population upwards of you know, sixty to seventy million people

0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:20.480
<v Speaker 1>voting by mail or through mail ballots, then you should

0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:23.320
<v Speaker 1>expect that that will be one of the real foci

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:25.880
<v Speaker 1>of of litigation. That's what people are going to be

0:07:25.920 --> 0:07:29.080
<v Speaker 1>concentrating on. When I read the complaint in the New

0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:34.680
<v Speaker 1>York suit, it made allegations that Secretary of the Treasury

0:07:34.800 --> 0:07:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Minution had been directly interfering with the Post Office in

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:43.840
<v Speaker 1>the month prior to the resignation of David Williams from

0:07:43.840 --> 0:07:47.120
<v Speaker 1>the Board of Governors. Why wasn't he brought in as

0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:51.320
<v Speaker 1>a main party on the lawsuit? In general, you don't

0:07:51.400 --> 0:07:57.200
<v Speaker 1>sue different cabinet officials who may have exerted pressure on agencies. Um.

0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:00.360
<v Speaker 1>The question is whether the government behaved in a way

0:08:00.400 --> 0:08:05.160
<v Speaker 1>contrary to law. However, that's incredibly important evidence if you're

0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:10.640
<v Speaker 1>trying to say that the articulated reason for changing policy

0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.720
<v Speaker 1>was not actually the one that they they said, but

0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:17.720
<v Speaker 1>was pretext for political motives. And so it's very similar

0:08:17.760 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 1>to what happened in the case dealing with the census,

0:08:20.560 --> 0:08:23.600
<v Speaker 1>where the allegation was that this was being done, that

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:26.880
<v Speaker 1>that the addition of a citizenship question on the census

0:08:27.040 --> 0:08:30.360
<v Speaker 1>was being done for political reasons, not for um, the

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:33.520
<v Speaker 1>reasons that the Secretary of Commerce said or that the

0:08:33.600 --> 0:08:35.880
<v Speaker 1>others in the administration said. And so if you have

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:40.480
<v Speaker 1>evidence of political interference, that could undermine the case that

0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:43.559
<v Speaker 1>it was done for neutral reasons. There's a Trump campaign

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:48.280
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit over ballot drop boxes in Pennsylvania and a federal

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:51.360
<v Speaker 1>judge put it on hold so that the state courts

0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:55.360
<v Speaker 1>could decide the matter or rule on the matter further.

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.960
<v Speaker 1>What is the import of that? Is that very important

0:09:00.080 --> 0:09:04.280
<v Speaker 1>or is it just a procedural thing. I think it

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:06.840
<v Speaker 1>is an important case. It's an important case for Pennsylvania,

0:09:06.880 --> 0:09:11.160
<v Speaker 1>but it's an important case uh nationally to signaling about

0:09:11.160 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 1>the different ways that people can deposit their mail ballot

0:09:14.760 --> 0:09:17.240
<v Speaker 1>because at the same time that we're complaining about the

0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:21.240
<v Speaker 1>postal service and that President Trump is complaining about vote

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.360
<v Speaker 1>by mail. Um. The use of ballot drop boxes is

0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:28.000
<v Speaker 1>a in somebody's a more secure, less male intensive way

0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:32.720
<v Speaker 1>of getting these mail ballots into the hands of election officials.

0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:36.440
<v Speaker 1>And so if they are ruled to be illegal in

0:09:36.720 --> 0:09:41.080
<v Speaker 1>under Pennsylvania law, that will remove one other way that

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 1>um of people would be able to drop off their

0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:48.040
<v Speaker 1>ballot um. And and it just creates greater reliance either

0:09:48.080 --> 0:09:51.079
<v Speaker 1>on in person voting or on the mail itself. Uh.

0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 1>And then where they've been used, um, In the vote

0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:56.840
<v Speaker 1>by mail states, they are used, you know, quite frequently.

0:09:57.000 --> 0:10:00.640
<v Speaker 1>And so Colorado, for example, which is all vote by mail. Um,

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:03.400
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of a misnomer because of the voters in

0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:06.520
<v Speaker 1>Colorado actually drop off the ballot in a ballot drop box,

0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:09.520
<v Speaker 1>not in the with the postal service. That's Nate Personally

0:10:09.559 --> 0:10:12.160
<v Speaker 1>of Stanford Law School. And that's it for this edition

0:10:12.160 --> 0:10:15.720
<v Speaker 1>of Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening,

0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:18.120
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:10:18.160 --> 0:10:20.720
<v Speaker 1>weeknight at ten pm Eastern. I'm Bloomberg Radio