After a year-long redistricting blitz, Republicans have moved on to phase two of their election strategy: securing Americans’ ballots. After the Supreme Court delivered a surprising blow to the GOP in June, allowing mail-in votes to be counted almost a week after Election Day, there’s an understandable concern that the upcoming midterms will be ripe for fraud. While conservatives are making a desperate push for the SAVE America Act to address some of that panic, that’s not the only play in the Right’s book.

President Trump, frustrated by the tight margins in the House and Senate that are bogging down these bills, has gotten creative with the problems plaguing our elections — issuing several executive orders and rules that would close the loopholes Democrats are using to undermine legitimate voters. Of course, the courts have put the brakes on some of the White House’s ideas, including one very interesting plan to involve the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

Piggybacking on a March 31 EO, the administration instructed the USPS to oversee and streamline the states’ mail-in ballots, putting it in charge of “standardiz[ing] envelope design for mailed ballots” and helping states use “a unique barcode to track ballots, thus significantly reducing the chain-of-custody problem” that makes it easier to cheat. “The rule would also create, for the first time, a standardized, nationwide auditing mechanism for mail-in voting,” Alabama’s attorney general’s office points out.

Part of Trump’s order also required state governments to provide their voter rolls to the federal government. “This provision will help determine adherence to federal law and facilitate law enforcement efforts,” USPS noted. “For example, the provided lists will evidence how many ballots have been mailed, and allow law enforcement officials to compare the total number of mailed ballots to the total number of received ballots to detect potential issues meriting further investigation.” If a blue state refused to comply, it wouldn’t have access to mail-in ballots.

A federal judge in Washington claimed that the order would give the federal government too much control over elections and put the order on ice. That infuriated several state attorneys general, who argue that mail-in voting has compromised election results and destroyed trust. Led by Alabama’s Steve Marshall, 13 of those AGs rallied behind the rule in a letter that emphasizes the USPS’s role in protecting ballots across the country.

“States are the leaders in regulating elections,” Marshall underscored, “and yet despite our best efforts to enact policies to deter and detect fraud, voter fraud continues to be a problem. We appreciate the federal government lending a helping hand to shore up our elections and help states provide Americans with confidence in our system,” he and his counterparts continued. “We support the Service’s proposed rule in full. It addresses real vulnerabilities inherent in mail-in voting, responds to legitimate and widespread public concerns about federal election integrity, and equips states with tools that strengthen their own oversight capabilities without displacing their authority. We urge the Service to promptly finalize the rule.”

Katherine Robertson, the chief counsel to AG Marshall, lamented that this is remotely controversial. “I think it’s very clear by the litigation against this rule so far that it has really become a red state, blue state issue,” she told “Washington Watch” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice. “And you hate to think that election integrity is so polarizing and so partisan, but that is clearly the case. You saw a bevy of blue states immediately come in and sue. And you have to ask yourself, why is that? Why is it that the red states want election integrity, and the blue states don’t? And I think, you know, unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that.”

As FRC Action’s Matt Carpenter told The Washington Stand, “Mail-in ballots are the main area of concern for Americans worried about the integrity of our elections. During the COVID era, we saw their use increase dramatically as emergency rules were implemented to expand access to them. Since then,” he continued, “we have seen proposals, and in some states, new laws, to enhance voter identification for those using mail-in ballots, and now we have a solid proposal to enhance the chain of custody issues at the heart of fraud with mail-in ballots. This move by Attorney General Marshall would immediately give Americans who choose to use mail-in ballots confidence that their votes will not just make it into the final count, but also will not be offset by potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots.”

Incredibly, 24 blue and purple state AGs are going to the mat to stop the USPS — or any government agency — from safeguarding the midterm elections in court. Oregon’s Dan Rayfield (D) griped that “President Trump wants to turn letter carriers into election gatekeepers,” and according to him, “that’s not a role the Postal Service was built for.”

Robertson disagrees, explaining that this is one of the powers the president has. “You know, he’s waiting on Congress to act on the SAVE Act, but he’s got tools at his disposal as the leader of our executive branch of government. And so, this particular rule is designed to utilize the authority of the United States Postal Service to strengthen the integrity of that part of voting. Obviously,” she acknowledged, “lots of ballots are cast by mail, absentee ballots, and otherwise. And so, what he’s proposed to do is to keep a national list, a national voter registry, that has to be checked before a ballot can be mailed out. And then he has proposed a barcode system that would help track ballots to ensure that they’re getting from point A to point B in a way that maintains ballot security. The states’ reaction to that — or at least the 13 states that joined our letter, is to say, ‘Thank you for being willing to do the part … that we cannot secure on our own.’”

In the meantime, multiple lawsuits over the idea are already in process in the most radically leftist states. “So there’s a long road ahead,” Robertson concedes. “[And] what’s interesting about this rule is that it is still in the comment period. This rule has not even been finalized yet. And yet, they’ve rushed in to prejudge.”

Regardless, she and others persist. “I think the goal would be to get this rule implemented and implemented quickly. But this is a fight not just for the next election. It’s a fight for future elections. … So we’re here for the long run,” Robertson vowed.