The Brookings Institute (Brookings) cited Center for Election Confidence’s (CEC) recent long-form regulatory comment submitted to the United States Postal Service (USPS) concerning the importance of maintaining the historic purpose and uses of the postmark in a recent article, “When a postmark no longer tracks mailing“.
As Brookings notes, despite concerns from “civil society groups”, including CEC, the USPS last week implemented a change to its Domestic Mail Manual that eschews centuries of postal practice to change how postmarks are applied and their significance for third parties, such as voters and election administrators, who rely on them.
On December 24, 2025, a quiet change took effect in the Postal Service’s Domestic Mail Manual. The new section (DMM 608.11) now clarifies that a postmark will no longer indicate the date a piece of mail was deposited with U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The Postal Service notes this misalignment “has and will become more common” as it continues consolidating its processing network and standardizing transportation schedules under the Delivering for America (DFA) plan.
In September, CEC submitted regulatory comment to the USPS, urging the service to maintain and improve standard postmark practices, arguing that postmarks are not simply an internal accounting practice for the agency but that the USPS has a duty to the third parties who rely on postmarks.
Civil society groups have raised similar concerns. In September 2025, The Center for Election Confidence urged USPS to preserve consistent postmarking practices for ballots and other time-sensitive mail, emphasizing that postmarks have long served as a trusted marker of whether voters met statutory deadlines. The organization warned that changes to postmarking practices would introduce uncertainty into election administration in jurisdictions that rely on postmarks to determine whether a ballot was timely cast.
That these recent changes by the USPS are so disruptive that civil society groups from across the ideological spectrum find common cause is significant enough standing alone; yet, such a moment pales in contrast to the impact on election administration and voter confidence across the country that such changes may produce.
Untrustworthy or unreliable postmark dates will create voter confusion and the likelihood that ballots mailed or arriving after state statutory deadlines are counted notwithstanding their untimeliness (CEC recently submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that federal law requires all ballots in federal elections be received by Election Day).
As Brookings highlights, “the meaning and reliability of a postmark directly affect election administration”. On this, CEC couldn’t agree more.