There is zero evidence in the record that the regulation interfering with mail ballots is needed to detect election fraud.
Posted by Strict Scrutiny, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support5 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 60%
Strict ScrutinySep 15, 2026
Sources show the Postal Service's rule cited no evidence of voter fraud and that the government offered only 'common sense' when pressed for evidence that mail voting is riskier, with no countervailing record evidence against the district court's findings.
A guest makes this claim. Listeners heard it, so it counts against the post, and on the guest's own record.
This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.
What was said
… just to reveal how conspiracy theory MAGA pilled he is, Alito repeats, like with a straight face, the demonstrably false claim that the regulation interfering with mail ballots is needed to, quote, "better detect election fraud." To be clear, as a reminder, there is exactly zero evidence in the record of this. There is exactly zero evidence of this, period, in or out of the record. And against this evidence-free conspiracy claim, Sam Alito balances the difficulty to election officials. …
Strict Scrutiny · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Postal Service's Final Rule cites no evidence of voter fraud and acknowledges fraud may be 'uncommon,' while asserting the rule is needed to reduce fraud risk without further explanation.[1]
Supports. When pressed by CBS for evidence that mail voting presents greater fraud risk, Attorney General Blanche said there is 'a lot of evidence' but, asked what it was, answered 'it's common sense.'[4]
Supports. Commentary on the case states that the government's briefs did not contest the district court's findings and that there is no countervailing record evidence disputing them.[5]
Context. Independent studies (Brookings, Utah Valley University, MIT-cited research) find mail-ballot fraud very rare, which undercuts the premise that the rule is needed to detect fraud, though these concern fraud levels rather than the rule's record.[2][6][7][8]
Context. The 2026-09-15 date is the reference point; the Supreme Court later blocked the rule on timing grounds without ruling on its constitutionality, which does not change what the record contained on that date.[3][6]
Sources
8 sources: 3 primary, 1 tier 2, 3 not rated, 1 tier 1
- 1No. 26A305supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 2Mail voting fraud: Data points to low risk and high benefits for voters | Brookingsbrookings.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 3The Battle Over Mail-In Voting Is About More Than Ballotskarshinstitute.virginia.edu · primary source · cited for: context
- 4Blanche defends mail ballot changes, says election practices ...cbsnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 5What's Conspicuously Missing from the Government's Supreme Court Reply Brief in the Mail Ballots Casejustsecurity.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Trump says US voter fraud is 'rampant' - evidence suggests it is extremely rarebbc.com · tier 1 · cited for: context
- 7Voting by mail: What journalists need to know - SciLinesciline.org · not rated · cited for: context
- 8Study debunks fraud claims with Utah's vote by mail system | Opiniondeseret.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- There have been very few cases of in-person voter fraud in all elections over decades.True
- There was no voter fraud that changed the 2020 election.True
- 15 states have approved voter ID laws in the absence of any meaningful evidence of voter fraud.False
- Voter fraud is barely non-existent in the United States.True