Watch the full Daily Beltway report
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold appeared on MSNBC where she faced direct questioning about whether state officials were exploring the use of FedEx or UPS to deliver mail-in ballots in case federal courts or the U.S. Postal Service impose restrictions.
The exchange revealed that Colorado had previously considered bypassing traditional postal channels to maintain expanded mail voting, though Griswold ultimately dismissed the idea as impractical.
The MSNBC host asked whether conversations were happening to “circumvent an adverse ruling or a worst case scenario by pulling in players, the private sector players like FedEx or UPS to try to ensure that no matter what happens in the courts, people get their mail-in ballots.” The phrasing of the question itself underscored the premise: state officials preparing workarounds in anticipation of losing in court.
🚨 WHAT PANIC LOOKS LIKE. 😂
An MS NOW host asks the Colorado Secretary of State whether they’re discussing bringing in FedEx or UPS to deliver mail-in ballots in case the courts rule against them:
“So that no matter what happens in the courts, people get their mail-in… pic.twitter.com/kgcQeOZqCD
— American Nightmare 🇺🇸 (@thewakeninq) August 30, 2026
Griswold confirmed that using private delivery companies “is something we have contemplated in the past, especially during the pandemic when there was uncertainty of the postal service.” She cited two primary obstacles: extreme cost and the inability of private carriers to reach rural areas. “A lot of those private mail delivery systems will not carry all the way into very rural areas,” she said, concluding that “it is actually not feasible.”
Despite ruling out FedEx and UPS, Griswold expressed confidence that major changes would not occur before upcoming elections. She noted that only 66 days remained until Election Day and that military and overseas ballots were set to go out in three weeks. “The big overhauls would be extremely challenging, if not impossible,” she said.
Griswold acknowledged ongoing litigation involving the Postal Service and described the difficult position facing state election officials: whether to alter procedures immediately with no active rules in place, or wait for court outcomes. She framed the legal battle as an effort to stop the Postal Service from “deciding which voters get a ballot,” referencing prior lawsuits during the current presidential term. “States and the people defending democracy have largely won,” she said, expressing optimism about prevailing in court.
The interview highlights the friction between state officials committed to mass mail voting and federal efforts under the Trump administration to impose stricter oversight and integrity measures. Conservative critics have long argued that expanded mail-in systems create vulnerabilities to fraud and reduce transparency, particularly when administrators explore contingency plans to sidestep potential court restrictions rather than accepting limits.
The fact that private carriers were even considered as a backup option signals an assumption that courts might curtail certain practices. It also reveals a priority: maintaining the current volume and reach of mail balloting, even if it means exploring alternatives outside the traditional postal framework.
Griswold’s dismissal of the FedEx-UPS option was based on logistics, not principle. She did not argue that private carriers would be inappropriate or improper, only that they would be too expensive and unable to serve remote voters. The implication is clear: if cost and coverage were not barriers, the workaround would be on the table.
Critics point out that such contingency thinking prioritizes ballot distribution over verifiable processes. In a state like Colorado, where rural gaps in private delivery are acknowledged, the idea of using FedEx or UPS raises questions about equal access and oversight. If private companies cannot reach all voters, how would such a system ensure fairness? And who would monitor the chain of custody when ballots move through private channels instead of the federally regulated Postal Service?
The exchange also underscores a broader resistance among some state officials to federal standardization of mail voting rules. Rather than preparing to adapt to potential judicial limits, Griswold’s comments suggest a strategy of hoping for favorable court outcomes and continuing current operations unless forced to change.
With litigation ongoing, the reliance on optimism about winning in court leaves the process dependent on judicial decisions rather than transparent, established protocols. If courts do impose restrictions, the scramble for alternatives could create confusion and inconsistency in how ballots are handled across different jurisdictions.
The Trump administration has made election integrity a priority, focusing on restoring trust through measures that include scrutiny of mail voting practices and coordination with the Postal Service. State officials like Griswold, who view such efforts as threats to voter access, are digging in and preparing for legal battles.
But the fact that a major state election official openly discussed circumventing potential court rulings, even hypothetically, reveals the mindset: preserve the current system at all costs, and explore workarounds if the courts intervene.
That approach raises red flags for conservatives who believe election integrity must come before convenience and that courts exist to set boundaries, not to be bypassed.
Griswold’s confidence in winning future lawsuits may prove well-founded, or it may not. Either way, the interview shows that some state officials are more focused on maintaining expanded mail voting than on building systems that can withstand judicial scrutiny and public trust.