'Do You Have Authority To Deny Delivery Of Ballots?': Blumenthal Grills Postmaster General

[0:00] Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt your eloquent closing by [0:06] making my entrance before now. Let me ask you first a question which I think applies generally [0:18] to your performance in the job. Will you commit that when we have specific questions about post [0:28] offices, about postal service in Connecticut or elsewhere, that you will respond within a timely [0:37] period? Absolutely, and I hope we've been doing that. And I know you've probably been asked about [0:47] that in the past. I want to ask you about the recent executive order. I'm sure you've been asked about [0:56] it so far, and I apologize. I've been in the Judiciary Committee meeting. But the United States [1:04] Postal Service is not an election administration agency, is it? No, absolutely not. And you have [1:13] no constitutional authority to review ballots or deny postal service to someone mailing in a ballot, [1:23] do you? I don't remember my constitutional law class that well, so I would have to defer that to [1:28] lawyers. Well, I think you know enough constitutional law to answer this question. The United States [1:35] Postal Service has no role whatsoever in reviewing balloting or mail-in ballots under current law, [1:46] does it? And I'm not trying to be, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but reviewing, I'm not sure what [1:54] you mean by reviewing. Well, the president's executive order says that the Postal Service should somehow [2:02] review voter lists and then refuse to deliver mail, in effect. No, we don't review the voter list. So [2:10] the voter list for us is like a manifest, right? And so the state gives us the list of voters that they [2:17] want ballots to go to, and then they give us the ballots. We match the ballots with the list, [2:23] and we can tell the state, yes, all the ballots that you say are going to the right people are [2:27] going, or no different ballots are going, or maybe you missed some ballots. You know, it's what I said [2:32] earlier. It really is trying to help the state make sure that the ballots that they send to the voters [2:40] actually get there and get to those voters. And so it's strictly a manifest for us to make sure that [2:47] the right ballots are going to the right people. And do you have authority to deny delivery of [2:56] ballots? Um, not under the current rules. Our, our, our proposed rules would say that if we don't have [3:03] that manifest, um, that we can't move the mail. But you're not going to deliver, you're not going to [3:11] refuse to deliver ballots to a voter that the states say is registered? Yeah, absolutely not. And you're not [3:21] going to review the legitimacy of whether someone is properly registered? No, not our function. We deliver [3:28] mail. And what if states say to you, we would just assume you not do that kind of review? Do the, the [3:40] the manifest and the ballots? Correct. Under the proposed rule, um, we would then not deliver that mail. Well, you [3:48] would refuse to deliver mail if states would prefer that you not do the matching? Yeah. [3:55] If they don't comply with a valid rule, again, as you know, the rules, their proposed rules, they're not [4:00] final rules. We have a comment period that we're looking at, but under the, under the proposed rules, [4:05] that would be correct. You agree with the proposed rule? Um, you know, I think when I, what I think is [4:13] that we need to be efficient and accurate in moving ballots. You know, when you look at what we've [4:19] suggested to states now for years and years and years and years, it is exactly this rule. You know, [4:26] if you look at it, um, whether it's Connecticut, Michigan, California, we have something we call [4:32] Kit 600. And, and we, we have a lot of people that educate your folks in the state as to how to do it. [4:38] That, the Kit 600 recommends unique barcodes, unique envelope. Um, so this is not something that we have to do for years. [4:43] If the state of Connecticut says to you, we want you to deliver mail-in ballots without conducting [4:51] your purported supposed so-called review, which is unconstitutional, you will deliver the mail [5:01] to Connecticut voters. Is that correct? I'm, I'm confused. Under the proposed rule or under current [5:08] rules? Under the constitution of the United States, you have an obligation. You run the postal service, [5:15] you deliver the mail. You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should. The [5:21] founding fathers didn't envision that kind of review. This proposed rule is bogus. And I want [5:27] your commitment that you will deliver the mail, including mail-in ballots, to Connecticut voters [5:33] without conducting this bogus sham review. Yeah, look, we'll deliver every piece of mail that, that [5:42] meets our then current regulations. Well, your regulations should not include a review or second [5:50] guessing the state on who its electors are, correct? I think that our proposed rule, um, is, is, as you [5:59] know, subject to litigation. We'll, we'll see how that all turns out. Well, I guess we will see, but it [6:04] will probably be in court. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.