I haven’t published the story about what happened on June 23rd yet.
Not because I don’t have things to say. I have plenty to say. I have documentation, timelines, names, and a full account of that night that I am going to publish, with receipts, when the time is right. I want that piece to land the way it deserves to land, and that means doing it properly.
So if you’ve been waiting for me to go silent, to absorb the loss and move on and fold back into the committee like nothing happened: that’s not what’s coming. What’s coming is the full story. I’m just not done building it yet.
What I want to talk about today is something else. Something that happened two days after the vote. Something that should matter to every Republican in Chester County who cast a ballot for the people who beat me, because they beat me, in part, by dismissing concerns that the Postmaster General of the United States just confirmed under oath before the Senate.
Let me back up.
The night before the June 23rd vote, a letter went out from the incumbent side. It was a closing argument, the last word before the committee gathered to choose its leadership.
In that letter, under the heading “Early Voting,” there was a line about mail-in ballots. About the concerns I and others had raised regarding postal reliability and election integrity infrastructure. About whether Republican leadership needed to be paying closer attention to the mechanics of how votes actually move through the system.
Here’s what the letter said:
“When our opponents say that the postal service is unreliable, that is a shortsighted and not at all a strategic response.”
Shortsighted. Not strategic.
That was the dismissal. That was the argument the committee accepted when they voted the way they voted. That I didn’t know what I was talking about.
That raising these concerns was naive, counterproductive, the wrong instinct for someone who wanted to lead.
I want you to remember that line. Hold it close.
On June 24th, the day after the vote, Postmaster General David Steiner sat before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Senator Gary Peters asked him a direct question: if a state refuses to turn its absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under the proposed rule?
Steiner’s answer:
“Under our proposed regulation, no.”
No hedging. No deflection. No. The Postal Service would tell the state it needed the manifest first. No list, no ballot mail.
This is not a blogger. This is not a conservative activist making a prediction.
This is the man who runs the United States Postal Service, under oath, before the United States Senate, confirming that USPS is preparing to function as a conditional election service, one that will withhold mail ballots from states that don’t comply with the president’s executive order on election integrity.
The proposed rule stems from an executive order Trump signed on March 31st. USPS published it in the Federal Register on June 2nd. The public comment period closes July 2nd, this week. All 49 Senate Democrats have already signed letters demanding it be withdrawn. Multiple lawsuits are moving through federal courts. Pennsylvania’s response to this rule will determine what mail ballot infrastructure looks like here in November.
The postal service is not a neutral backdrop. It is an active variable. It has been for some time. And the people now leading the Chester County Republican Committee went on record, in writing, the night before the vote, calling that concern shortsighted.
Here’s what frustrates me most. Not the dismissal of me personally. I can handle that. What frustrates me is the logic they used, because it doesn’t hold up.
The letter claimed that 85% of Republicans return their mail-in ballots, therefore we have to use them, therefore concerns about postal reliability are strategically unhelpful.
I dispute that framing, starting with the geography. In Chester County’s 2024 primary, of the mail ballots returned before Election Day, most came from Democratic voters. Chester County is not a county where Republicans are dominating mail ballot usage. We are not the party driving those return numbers here. Democrats are. Whatever the statewide picture looks like, the argument was being made to a Chester County audience about Chester County strategy, and the local data doesn’t support it.
But the deeper problem is one the letter didn’t address at all.
Return rates tell you how many ballots came back. They do not tell you who returned them.
Pennsylvania has no chain of custody requirement that proves the voter who requested a mail ballot is the voter who filled it out and returned it. A ballot is mailed to an address. What happens between the mailbox and the return envelope is unverifiable. You can count returns. You cannot confirm the voter.
This is not a fringe concern. It is a structural gap in the system, one that election integrity advocates have raised for years, one that the RCCC’s own solicitor has litigated around in the context of nursing home ballot harvesting. The committee knows this problem exists. They have fought it in court.
And yet the night before the vote, the argument on the table was that Republicans return 85% of their mail-in ballots, so stop worrying.
I said that argument had holes in it. I was called shortsighted.
The Postmaster General just handed me the receipt.
I want to be honest about something. I’m annoyed. I’m not going to dress that up as measured analysis or pretend I’m writing this from some calm, dispassionate place. I ran a serious campaign. I raised serious concerns. I built a team of serious people. We had a plan ready to implement on Day One, and serious financial investors ready to back us up. And the committee chose leadership that dismissed these concerns, and others, in a letter, the night before the vote, and then went out and did what they had to do to make sure I didn’t win.
I know what happened that night. I have documentation. And I will publish it.
But even before that piece runs, this is what I need Chester County Republicans to understand: you didn’t just vote for a different management style or a different set of personalities. You voted for a slate that put it in writing, that the concerns I was raising about election infrastructure were not worth taking seriously.
One day later, the Postmaster General proved otherwise.
That’s not my opinion. That’s the United States Senate, on the record, June 24th, 2026.
The full account of June 23rd is coming. I said I’d tell the story and I will. I’m not going anywhere. I’m not staying quiet. I’m not reconciling my way into silence.
I was right about this. I’ll be right about the rest of it too.
Watch.
A note to subscribers:
I know how this works. I know the reflex. When someone starts pulling threads, the first move is to discredit the person pulling them. Extremist. Conspiracy theorist. Sore loser. I’ve been labeled before. I’ve been written about in national newspapers. I’ve had coordinated campaigns run against me. None of it stopped me then and it won’t stop me now.
I am not an extremist. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a Republican committeewoman with documentation, a timeline, and a very long memory.
By the time I am done, they will wish that’s all I was.
My foot is on the gas pedal. We have no time to lose.
The story is coming. So is everything else.
Thanks for being here.
Ada