U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Post-Election Day Ballot Receipt Deadlines

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states may count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after it, affirming state authority over election administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings and heard arguments in cases concerning the counting of mail ballots, specifically addressing whether states may count ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after that date. The central case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, originated from a challenge to a Mississippi law.

The court has upheld the principle that states may set receipt deadlines that extend beyond Election Day, while also ruling that political candidates have legal standing to challenge election laws before an election occurs.

The Watson v. RNC Case

Origin of the Dispute

The case concerns a Mississippi law, enacted in 2020, that permits mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and are received by election officials within five business days after Election Day. Similar laws exist in approximately 14 to 18 states and the District of Columbia, with varying grace periods and conditions. An additional 15 to 29 states have extended deadlines specifically for military and overseas voters.

The Republican National Committee (RNC), along with the Mississippi Republican Party and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenged the Mississippi law. The plaintiffs argued that federal law, which designates the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day, mandates that ballots must be both cast and received by that date. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with this interpretation and struck down the Mississippi law. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Ruling

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Mississippi's law does not conflict with federal law. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that federal law sets the date for the election but does not specify that ballots must be received by that date. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Barrett, and the three liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson). The ruling allows Mississippi and other states with similar laws to continue counting ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within their respective grace periods.

Arguments Presented

During oral arguments, the justices examined several key issues:

• Definition of "Election Day": Liberal justices questioned whether federal law's reference to "Election Day" historically refers to the date voters cast their ballots, not the date by which all ballots must be received. They cited historical precedents, including Civil War-era soldier voting and modern early voting practices, as examples of states permitting voting outside of a single 24-hour period.
• Early Voting: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett questioned the plaintiffs on the legal basis for allowing early in-person voting, which occurs before Election Day, if federal law strictly requires voting on "the day of the election." Counsel for the plaintiffs did not provide a clear legal distinction for why early voting would be permissible under their theory but late-arriving ballots would not.
• Election Integrity and Fraud: Conservative justices expressed concerns about the potential for fraud or the "appearance of fraud" associated with late-arriving ballots. Justice Samuel Alito asked whether combating fraud or its appearance is a legitimate consideration in interpreting Election Day statutes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concerns that late-arriving ballots could destabilize election results and lead to charges of a rigged election. Mississippi's Solicitor General, Scott Stewart, stated that the Trump administration had not identified any instances of fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt in the current century.
• Ballot Recalls: Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett questioned the possibility of voters recalling ballots through postal services. Stewart affirmed that Mississippi does not allow ballot recalls.

Ruling on Candidate Standing to Sue

In a separate 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that political candidates have legal standing to challenge election laws before voting or counting begins. The case originated from Illinois, where Republican U.S. Rep. Michael Bost and other candidates challenged a state law allowing election officials to count mail ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, writing that "candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Justice Jackson argued in her dissent that the court was granting candidates the ability to sue in advance of provable harm, a right generally not afforded to most voters.

Potential Impact and Reactions

Effect on States

The rulings have direct implications for election administration in states with post-Election Day receipt deadlines. According to reports, over 750,000 ballots were affected by these laws in the 2024 election cycle. In Washington state, officials reported that over 250,000 ballots postmarked on time arrived after Election Day.

States such as California, Texas, New York, and Illinois currently operate with post-Election Day deadlines. Rural areas, including Alaska, face unique challenges, as many communities rely on air service for mail delivery and lack in-person voting options. In 2022, ballots from six Alaskan rural villages were not counted due to delayed delivery by the U.S. Postal Service.

Four states with Republican-controlled legislatures—Ohio, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah—removed their grace periods last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and Voting Rights Lab.

Official Statements

Donald Trump: Called the ruling a "tremendous loss" and reiterated his call for legislation requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo ID for casting a ballot.

Stephen Richer (Republican, former election official in Maricopa County, Arizona): Described the outcome as a "sigh of relief" for election administrators.

Jason Snead (Executive Director, Honest Elections Project): Stated that historically, ballots were generally understood to require receipt by election officials before Election Day concluded.

Kristin Connelly (Clerk-Recorder, Contra Costa County, California): Stated that grace periods help ensure all timely cast ballots are counted.

Lisa Murkowski (Republican Senator, Alaska): Stated that few other states would experience a more detrimental impact from such a ruling and expressed concern about what she termed "voter intimidation" through various legislative efforts.

Michelle Sparck (Director, Get Out the Native Vote): Views the Supreme Court case and related legislation as a "multipronged attempt to take control or wrest control of elections away from states."

Broader Context

The case is part of a larger national debate over mail-in voting. Former President Trump has been a vocal critic of mail-in voting, asserting it leads to fraud, despite evidence to the contrary and widespread use in numerous states by voters of all political affiliations. During his administration, Trump signed an executive order on elections aimed at requiring votes to be "cast and received" by Election Day; this order is currently subject to ongoing court challenges.

The RNC has filed multiple legal challenges against state-level grace period laws. The Trump administration has supported the RNC's stance, arguing that federal law requires all ballots to be received by Election Day.

Election officials from various states and major cities have stated in a written filing to the court that compelling states to alter their practices just months before an election carries risks of "confusion and disenfranchisement."