Why It Matters
A Congressional Research Service report published June 2 lays out in precise, nonpartisan detail just how dramatically the federal government is now asserting itself into election administration, a domain that states have jealously guarded for most of American history.
Tens of millions of Americans have come to rely on early voting and mail voting as their primary means of participating in democracy, while the Trump administration and its congressional allies are moving aggressively to roll back those options at the federal level. The two sides are not merely arguing about convenience. They are arguing about who controls the fundamental architecture of American elections, who benefits from it, and whether the expansion of the past several decades will survive the current political moment.
The Big Picture
The CRS report, authored by analysts Sarah J. Eckman and Karen L. Shanton, comes as the legislative and executive branches are simultaneously pulling in opposite directions on voting access, leaving election administrators across the country to navigate the uncertainty.
The scope of what has already changed is significant. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures data cited in the report, as of early 2026 all 50 states and the District of Columbia allow at least some voters to receive ballots by mail. Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia offer no-excuse mail voting, meaning any eligible voter can request a mail ballot without providing a reason. Eight states, specifically California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Vermont, as well as D.C., have gone further still, conducting all-mail elections as their default for general elections.
Early in-person voting has expanded just as broadly. Forty-seven states and D.C. now offer early voting for all eligible voters, with windows ranging from three days to 46 days before Election Day. Seventeen of the 21 states that allow same-day voter registration also permit it during the early voting period.
These alternative voting methods have become structural features of American elections, built up gradually over many decades. Voting from outside a home jurisdiction was available to some soldiers during the Civil War, but no-excuse mail voting did not appear until the 1970s. Oregon, now one of the all-mail pioneers, approved a test of the process for local elections in 1981 and spent nearly two decades piloting it before adopting it statewide in 2000. What Congress and the administration are now contemplating is a sharp reversal of that trajectory.
Proponents of expanded voting access argue that early voting and mail voting serve workers who cannot leave jobs during polling hours; citizens who will be traveling on Election Day; and voters with long-term illnesses or mobility limitations. They also point out that the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024, demonstrated the value of having election infrastructure that does not depend entirely on a single day of in-person voting.
But critics argue that mail voting introduces opportunities for fraud, errors, and voter coercion that in-person voting does not. The CRS report says other potential drawbacks include delays in reporting election results; logistical challenges tied to long-term ballot storage and postal reliability; and the possibility that voters who cast ballots early may later miss information such as a late-breaking scandal or a candidate withdrawal that could have changed their decision.
The executive branch has moved first, and Congress is scrambling to respond. President Trump has issued two executive orders with direct bearing on mail voting. The first, E.O. 14248, signed March 25, 2025, addresses deadlines for returning mail ballots. The second, E.O. 14399, signed March 31, 2026, addresses the design and transmission of mail balloting materials. Both orders are currently facing legal challenges, and the United States Postal Service has proposed a rule related to E.O. 14399. As the CRS report notes, litigation remains pending, meaning the practical effect of both orders on election administration is still unsettled. That means election officials planning for upcoming federal elections are operating without a clear picture of which rules will be in effect, and the window for making operational changes is finite.
Political Stakes
Democratic-aligned legislation would dramatically expand voting access nationwide. The Voter Empowerment Act would require states to offer both early voting and no-excuse mail voting for federal races, along with federal standards for how early voting is conducted. The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act would mandate no-excuse mail voting for federal elections across all states. The Vote at Home Act goes furthest, requiring all-mail elections for federal races. The People Over Long Lines (POLL) Act would establish federal standards for early voting procedures.
Republican-backed legislation would move in the opposite direction with equal force. The Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the Mail Ballot Integrity Act, and a proposed amendment to the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would all prohibit states from sending voters ballots for federal elections unless the voter specifically requests one. The Mail Ballot Integrity Act and the SAVE America Act amendment would go further, limiting mail voting in federal elections to voters in specified categories, effectively returning the country to a more restrictive absentee voting model.
Some members have also introduced legislation specifically aimed at the executive orders themselves, either to codify them into statute or to nullify them, depending on which party is sponsoring the bill.
For the Administration
The executive orders represent a significant assertion of federal authority over election administration, and their survival in court would establish a precedent for executive power in this space. A legal defeat would send the issue back to Congress, where the votes for sweeping restriction are far from certain.
For Republicans
The challenge is squaring a traditional commitment to states' rights in election administration with a policy agenda that increasingly demands federal intervention to restrict practices that have expanded under state-level Democratic governance.
For Democrats
Expanding voting access has been a core party priority, and the legislative proposals on their side of the ledger would represent the most significant federal intervention in election administration in decades.
For the Public
Millions of Americans who have for years voted by mail or during early voting periods, often in states that have offered these options for decades, are now watching to see whether those options will continue to exist in their current form for federal elections.
The Bottom Line
All 50 states allow some form of mail voting. Forty-seven states offer early in-person voting. The infrastructure of American elections was built over decades and is now used by a substantial share of the electorate in every federal election cycle. But with two executive orders in litigation, a USPS rule in process, and competing legislation spanning the full range of possible federal action, election administrators have no reliable picture of what the rules governing federal elections will look like in the near term.