Supreme Court Skepticism on Counting Late Mail-in Ballots
On Monday, legal analyst Greg Jarrett expressed that he anticipates skepticism from the Supreme Court regarding the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, referencing state laws that permit this practice.
The Court seems poised to restrict states’ abilities to include these late-arriving ballots, highlighting concerns around potential fraud and maintaining election integrity. During a segment on “Evening Edit,” Jarrett noted that the justices are worried about delays in vote counting, which could last for days or even weeks. Such extended timelines could violate federal law that establishes a fixed election date.
Jarrett commented, “I think a majority here is skeptical that these late-arriving ballots will be counted. There’s a valid concern: why should an important election be delayed for days or weeks due to postal issues? This goes against federal law that designates specific voting days.” He further mentioned that conservative justices fear that these prolonged delays might erode public confidence in the election’s integrity, as they could create a misleading narrative about possible fraud by altering the election’s outcome significantly.
He emphasized that late ballots and varying voting procedures shake public trust and highlight the importance of setting clear deadlines for elections.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that allegations of fraud often emerge anytime an apparent winner is declared before all ballots are counted, particularly when delays occur. He clarified that while this does not translate to banning early voting, any policy changes would need to align with a firm Election Day deadline. Furthermore, Jarrett noted how discussions during oral arguments began to touch on broader issues like ballot harvesting, which can lead to fraudulent activities.
Under Mississippi law, mail-in ballots can be counted until five days post-Election Day. However, both the Trump administration and the Republican National Committee maintain that federal law sets Election Day as the deadline, thus limiting states from accepting late ballots. Justice Neil Gorsuch conveyed concerns that such a method might allow for ballot manipulation by neighbors or family members, possibly swaying the election outcome.
Kavanaugh also raised a question about how much the “appearance” of fraud should impact the Court’s decision, suggesting that if deadlines are necessary and no one would be disenfranchised by a revised deadline, this concern should be considered in interpreting the law.
As the oral arguments concluded, no clear resolution emerged from the Supreme Court.
