A Postal Service whistleblower alleges the agency rushed to build a ballot-verification system that could reject thousands of mailed ballots for a single barcode error. According to the disclosure, development took weeks rather than the 9 months to a year typically needed for a project this complex.

The system follows President Trump’s executive order directing the federal government to compile lists of eligible American voters. USPS would check ballot barcodes against information submitted by state election officials, but the whistleblower claims that one invalid barcode could trigger the rejection of an entire batch. Senator Richard Blumenthal demanded answers from Postmaster General David Steiner, including whether development continued while court orders prohibited it. USPS has yet to respond.

The White House defended the project, saying USPS routinely uses similar barcode technology. Meanwhile, 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a renewed lawsuit challenging the order. The Supreme Court previously ruled their challenge premature without deciding the order’s legality, leaving the dispute unresolved as deadlines for printing and mailing ballots approach.

With control of Congress at stake in the midterms, mail-in ballots have become a hot topic, as they seem likely to be a consequential part of the voting process this November. Close races leave little room for administrative errors, especially if a single faulty barcode can stop an entire batch of ballots.

While preventing election fraud is a legitimate responsibility, verification must distinguish an ineligible voter from an eligible voter whose ballot encounters a technical problem. The whistleblower’s allegations concern whether this system can reliably make that distinction; they do not establish that fraud occurred.

It also may give the USPS unprecedented authority. Rather than simply transporting the ballots, the agency would also determine which ballots advance, which rightfully raises concerns about accountability should something go wrong.

Election officials need clear rules before ballots are printed and mailed, while voters need confidence that following instructions will count for something. A rushed rollout is more likely to produce rejected ballots, legal challenges and contested results, undermining the public trust the administration says its safeguards aim to protect.

If the whistleblower’s account is accurate, there may be a scenario where someone could fill out their ballot correctly and still have it stopped because another ballot in the same batch has a bad barcode. That would put your vote at risk over an error you neither caused nor could prevent. The report leaves unanswered whether voters would receive notice of a rejection or have time to respond. Without these protections and guarantees, submitting a ballot on time might not be enough to ensure it reaches election officials.

The whistleblower’s claims remain unproven, but voters need more transparency before ballots are mailed. Whatever the outcome of the legal fight, confidence in November’s results will depend on whether eligible Americans can trust the process that carries their votes from their homes to the count.