Supreme Court Upholds Mississippi Mail-in Voting Law
The Supreme Court has delivered a narrow 5-4 ruling in favor of a Mississippi law, permitting mail-in ballots to be counted on Election Day if they are postmarked by the relevant deadline. Shannon Bream from “Fox News Sunday” and former assistant attorney general John Yoo discussed the implications of this ruling, indicating that it poses challenges for Republicans contesting state regulations. They emphasized that states have considerable autonomy regarding election processes, although there could be Congressional oversight.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the court’s decision to count ballots received after Election Day. He cautioned that this could foster a perception among many that the election results are illegitimate. Alito pointed out what he views as a misinterpretation in the majority ruling regarding how electors are selected, but he concluded his dissent with a practical warning: counting late-arriving ballots may erode trust in the electoral system among the American public.
In his dissent, Alito described the ruling as “inconsistent with the text of the law, legal context, historical practice, and precedent,” suggesting it could lead to serious consequences. He raised essential questions about election law and the overall integrity of American elections.
Alito presented a hypothetical where the presidential election’s outcome depended on a state counting late mail-in ballots. In this scenario, one candidate leads by 15,000 votes on election night, but as more votes come in, this candidate’s advantage diminishes to just a few hundred. Justice Brett Kavanaugh added that if the supposed winner loses the morning after the election due to late ballots, allegations of fraud could proliferate.
Alito was adamant that this ruling could pave the way for voter fraud and exacerbate distrust in electoral integrity. He cited a 2005 commission led by former President Jimmy Carter that labeled absentee ballots as a significant potential source of voter fraud in the U.S.
While there have been documented incidents of mail-in voter fraud, evidence of widespread issues in the last two presidential elections remains lacking. In contrast, Democrats argue that processing late postmarked ballots is crucial for ensuring all voters can participate in choosing their representatives.
Rep. Marie Grusenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) expressed relief that the Supreme Court upheld Washington’s mail-in voting system, noting that for many, such as shift workers or parents of young children, it would be difficult to take time off for in-person voting. She praised Washington’s secure vote-by-mail approach for facilitating democratic participation.
However, the majority of justices refrained from addressing the merits of whether counting early votes is sound policy, indicating those discussions should be left to the legislative branch. Judge Amy Coney Barrett noted that the argument for requiring ballots to be received by Election Day relates to election integrity and public confidence—issues that, she stated, are meant for lawmakers to decide, not courts.
