To the Editor:
Re “Justices Clear a Path to Curb Mail-In Voting” (front page, Aug. 25):
The latest moves by President Trump to restrict mail‑in voting are not about election integrity; they are about political advantage. Mr. Trump has spent years insisting, without a shred of credible evidence, that mail‑in ballots are riddled with fraud. The real reason for his crusade is far simpler: He believes mail‑in voting benefits Democrats. That belief is unsupported by data, but it drives his actions.
Now, with his administration pushing to limit mail‑in ballots to voters deemed eligible by federal agencies, Mr. Trump is attempting to reshape elections to suit his political agenda. This is not safeguarding democracy; it is a blatant attempt to manipulate its machinery.
Equally troubling is the Supreme Court ruling that lifted an injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order. The court did not rule on the order’s legality, yet the ruling does allow parts of it to move forward, thereby injecting a big dose of confusion into states’ midterm election planning.
Free and fair elections are at the heart of a functioning democracy. When a president seeks to tilt the playing field and the Supreme Court seems willing to assist, the damage is not just procedural but potentially existential. Americans deserve an electoral system that protects voters, not one that protects the political fortunes and desires of a single man.
Ken Derow Swarthmore, Pa.
To the Editor:
In these Trumpian days, the shadow docket of the Supreme Court has, for me at least, become the shady docket. What rationale does the court have to consider President Trump’s challenge to mail-in voting, which is constitutionally under the purview of the states and Congress? That a six-member majority of the court decided to support Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to skew the midterm elections is disheartening.
The rationale for their decision was that the Trump administration was “likely to suffer irreparable harm.” Did these justices consider the harm that Mr. Trump causes every single day to others, both in this country and beyond?
Standing up to Mr. Trump might eventually dissuade him from his belief that he is all-powerful — that his words “I alone can fix it” are just not true.
Carol Harrington Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
To the Editor:
President Trump’s plan for federal intervention to hamstring mail-in voting infringes on the duty of states to administer their elections.
To do even a mediocre job of carrying out Mr. Trump’s executive order would require creating vast new bureaucracies in the Department of Homeland Security and the Postal Service. That’s the opposite of the usual G.O.P. demand to shrink the federal government. And when did Republicans become so trusting of bureaucrats’ performance?
How much would carrying out Mr. Trump’s order add to our $40 trillion debt? How much might the Postal Service raise stamp prices to pay for the extra costs of screening ballots? How many ballots will the Postal Service fail to deliver to eligible voters in time?
Mr. Trump’s “cure” is far worse than the alleged (and unverified) ills he’s claiming to treat.
My home state has run mail-in voting efficiently and securely for many years. Mr. Trump opts to use mail-in voting for himself. He should quit interfering with its use by the rest of us.
Paul Davies Albany, Ore.
Don’t Ban Data Centers. Regulate Them.
To the Editor:
Re “Fury Over Data Centers Quickly Shifts Midterms” (front page, Aug. 24):
Concentrated demand from data centers can strain local power grids, and residents are right to demand answers. The solution is regulation and transparency, not blanket obstruction.
We don’t ban cars or appliances for consuming energy; we require efficiency standards and hold manufacturers to them. Data centers should face the same discipline: mandatory disclosure of energy metrics and clean power plans before construction, and real accountability without stifling useful development for communities.
The alarm over data centers can be overstated: They are projected by the International Energy Agency to reach only about 3 percent of global electricity by 2030, and the technology helps other industries cut energy use.
This technology is here to stay. Our response should be measured and practical: rigorous efficiency standards, not bans.
Steven Hirsch Great Neck, N.Y.
The post The Battle Over Mail-In Voting appeared first on New York Times.
