This seems to only clarify that mail might have been in possession by USPS _before_ the postmark date. I don't see how that affects mail in voting.
Now there isn’t. Except I doubt that many people will actually know about the change/clarification so they’ll continue to mail ballots and taxes at the last second.
In a sane world, anything mailed “close enough” would be accepted. Or there’d be an explict 5-day grace period.
In states that require a postmark by Election Day to count a ballot received later, the operational reality of postmarking creates a chaotic environment where timely votes could be disqualified, or conversely, creates ambiguity about when a ballot actually entered the system.
It is unreasonable to expect every mail-in voter to stand in line at a post office to get a manual stamp to prove they voted on time. If the standard automated system cannot guarantee an accurate date, as this rule admits, then using that system for critical constitutional functions like voting is inherently flawed.
The instant in time at which your letter is technically "received" by the USPS, in the sense of them having physical possession, has never mattered for any legal purposes whatsoever. That's because in many cases, there is absolutely no physical proof of exactly what instant in time that event happened.
Electoral rules aren't written based on when the USPS received your ballot, because that's typically unprovable. They're either based on when the ballot was delivered to the election office, or when the ballot was postmarked. The postmarking may happen at some point while the piece of mail is in USPS custody, or it may not happen at all if you don't specifically ask for it.
The rules are based on the postmark date because the postmark date is the only available documentary evidence of the date of mailing.
Again, this is not a change in policy, it's merely documenting the way the mail system has always worked.
Has anyone challenged their ballot being rejected by producing video showing them putting the ballot in an envelope and putting said envelope in a mailbox?
Perhaps ironically, video evidence has been used to invalidate ballots. In 2023, a CT judge invalidated the results of the Democratic primary, finding "ballot stuffing" in that 1,253 absentee ballots were submitted at Bridgeport dropboxes despite surveillance video only showing 420 people using the boxes. A new Democratic primary was ordered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Bridgeport,_Co...