\n<\/p>\n
In Watson v. Republican National Committee<\/em><\/a>, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that\u00a0federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days thereafter. According to the five-member majority, nothing in the statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day.<\/p>\n The Constitution\u2019s Elections Clause empowers state legislatures to \u201cprescrib[e]\u201d the \u201cTimes, Places and Manner of holding\u201d congressional elections, while also allowing Congress to override such laws. Similarly, Article II provides that State legislatures may \u201cdirect\u201d the \u201cManner\u201d of appointing \u201cElectors\u201d to vote for President and Vice President. But \u201cCongress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes.\u201d<\/p>\n The federal election-day statutes set the day for the \u201celection\u201d of Representatives, Senators, and the President on a Tuesday in November. Mississippi permits certain residents, such as college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot.<\/p>\n Mississippi is also one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. Absentee voters in Mississippi may dispatch their ballots by mail or common carrier, and all absentee ballots must be \u201cpostmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and various individuals sued the Mississippi secretary of state and several election officials, contending that federal law prevents Mississippi from counting absentee ballots received after election day. According to plaintiffs, the election-day statutes use the word \u201celection\u201d to refer to two acts\u2014ballot casting and ballot receipt\u2014so by setting the day for the \u201celection,\u201d these statutes set the deadline for both.<\/p>\n The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar suit, and the District Court consolidated the cases, and then granted summary judgment to Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Mississippi\u2019s statute is preempted because the federal election-day statutes require ballots to be received by election day.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts<\/a> and Justices Sonia Sotomayor<\/a>, Elena Kagan<\/a>, and Ketanji Brown Jackson<\/a> joined Justice Amy Coney Barrett<\/a>\u2019s majority opinion.<\/p>\n \u201cIn sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate\u2019s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote\u2014as it is in Mississippi,\u201d Justice Barrett wrote. \u201cBut the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.\u201d<\/p>\n In reaching its decision, the majority concluded that federal election-day statutes do not preempt Mississippi\u2019s law because the defining element of an \u201celection\u201d has always been the electorate\u2019s choice of candidate.As Justice Barrett explained:<\/p>\n The electorate\u2019s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. The most recent amendment to the Presidential election-day statute bears this out. In 2022, Congress inserted the phrase \u201celection day\u201d into that statute and marked that day as a specific Tuesday. It then created an exception: When States \u201cmodif[y] the period of voting\u201d in response to certain force majeure events, the term \u201celection day\u201d shall \u201cinclude the modified period of voting.\u201d (emphasis added). That Congress defined \u201celection day\u201d with reference to \u201cvoting\u201d indicates that \u201cvoting\u201d is the act governed by the statute.<\/em><\/p>\n According to the majority, this interpretation is consistent with the Constitution\u2019s requirements for the electoral college. The Constitution requires the \u201cDay on which [the electors] shall give their Votes\u201d to be \u201cthe same throughout the United States,\u201d Art. II, \u00a71, cl. 4, but says nothing about the day for receipt. As Justice Barrett further stressed, federal election laws \u201cdo not set a deadline for ballot receipt\u201d and therefore \u201cdo not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.\u201d<\/p>\n The majority rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the election-day statutes require ballots to be received by election day, emphasizing that it relies heavily on historical practice, precedent, and policy.\u00a0\u201cAt bottom, plaintiffs\u2019 theory is that because we are governed by 19th-century election-day laws, we are also governed by 19th-century voting practices,\u201d Justice Barrett wrote. \u201cCarried to its logical conclusion, this theory would call into question the way modern elections work.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Finally, the majority emphasized that it was deciding a very narrow question. \u201cThe question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code,\u201d Justice Barrett wrote.<\/p>\n Justice Samuel Alito<\/a> wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas<\/a> and Neil Gorsuch<\/a>. Justice Brett Kavanaugh<\/a>\u00a0joined in part. According to Justice Alito, \u201c[F]rom this Nation\u2019s founding until the last few decades of the 20th century\u2014a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes\u2014having an \u2018election\u2019 on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAllowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day, by which point preliminary election returns are being publicly reported, creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public\u2019s confidence in election integrity,\u201d he further argued.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that\u00a0federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days thereafter. According to the five-member majority, nothing in the statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day. Facts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7054562,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[45528,22714,1449,4629,216845,216846,115879,49227],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7054561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal","tag-45528","tag-ballots","tag-bar","tag-dont","tag-electionday","tag-latearriving","tag-statutes","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts of the Case<\/h2>\n
Supreme Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Dissent<\/h2>\n