Monae Johnson Asked SCOTUS to Block Trump’s Mail-In-Ballot-Suppression Scheme, Casts Doubt on Jackley

Denied renomination by her party’s conpsiracy-theorizing election deniers, lame-duck Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson is now free to speak truth to power. South Dakota’s outgoing election denier-in-chief signed on to an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to block Donald Trump’s effort to turn the United States Postal Service into his own voter-suppression machine:

Johnson signed on to an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court neither arguing for nor against a proposed federal rule. Johnson’s position in the brief is that the changes would disrupt election processes across the country if they take effect immediately.

…The brief Johnson signed on to said enacting the rule ahead of November elections “will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays and confusion for both voters and election officials.”

It also said putting the rule into place “cannot be responsibly accomplished in the time that remains in a manner that ensures both that the rule is implemented correctly and other crucial preparations do not fall by the wayside” [Jackson Dircks, “Top SD Election Official Raises Concerns over Implementing Mail-In Ballot Restrictions for Midterms,” SDPB, 2026.09.14].

The Supreme Court, including all three of Trump’s appointees, evidently agrees with Secretary Johnson and her fellow election officials:

The Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, rejecting his efforts to enact new mail-in voting restrictions for the midterm election.

The ruling released Monday by the high court means the U.S. Postal Service is expected to continue delivering ballots as usual.

…Earlier this month, a federal judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunctionagainst USPS, blocking it from imposing those new ballot requirements on states. The judge found the requirements are likely illegal because the Postal Service has no authority to control mail-in voting. A second federal judge issued another preliminary injunction late Sunday.

Now, a majority of the Supreme Court decided to keep the Boston-based judge’s injunction in place. The court said the Trump administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a short concurring opinion, saying “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority.” But, he added, “applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

…Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the order, and would have granted the administration’s request to pause the Boston-based judge’s ruling [Hansi Lo Wang, “The Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Mail Voting Restrictions for This Year’s Midterms,” NPR: All Things Considered, 2026.09.15].

Secretary Johnson’s effective opposition to Trump’s election-rigging countered Attorney General and Congressional candidate Marty Jackley’s anti-democratic White House pandering in support of Trump’s assault on mail-in voting. Secretary Johnson took a veiled swipe at Jackley’s uninformed stance on this issue:

This comes as another top state official joined a legal effort to remove an injunction blocking the rule from taking effect prior to the November election. Attorney General Marty Jackley’s Office signed on as an intervening state in support of Trump’s proposed policy changes.

…A spokesperson from secretary of state’s office told SDPB that enacting the rule immediately would be “irresponsible” and “does nothing to support law abiding citizens to cast a ballot.” In addition, they said Jackley’s office did not consult them on the issue.

“The AG did not consult the secretary, the deputy or anyone in our office or election officials across the state before he signed on to defend the rules going into effect,” said Christine Lehrkamp, Director of the Division of Elections, in an emailed statement [Dircks, 2026.09.14].

I take some small relief in seeing that Secretary Johnson is recovering some conscience on her way out the door. She’s not expressing any great legal/constitutional scholarship (and I’d never expect that of her), but she’s showing signs of putting the practical demands of running an honest election ahead of the partisan quackery that she used (and that Marty Jackley and other Trumpublicans are still using) to get elected.