Supreme Court’s Decision on Election Day Ballots
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling against conservative efforts to limit Election Day’s significance.
The high court’s 5-4 decision stated, “The Federal Election Day Statute does not prohibit Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received up to five days later.” The ruling emphasized that there is no requirement in the statute for ballots to be received by Election Day.
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, stemmed from a prolonged dispute over Mississippi law during the COVID-19 pandemic. This law, passed by Republican leaders in the state, permits the counting of mail-in absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day and allows them to arrive up to five business days afterwards.
There were concerns from Republicans regarding mail-in voting, which tends to favor Democrats, particularly when ballots that arrive late are counted for an additional five days.
Despite a decline in partisan divides since 2020, significant differences in mail-in voting patterns are still expected in the upcoming 2024 elections. This context helps explain the strong defense of Mississippi’s law by Democratic advocacy groups.
In 2024, the Republican National Committee, alongside the Mississippi Republican Party and other individuals, filed a lawsuit against state election officials, arguing that federal law prohibits counting absentee ballots received after Election Day.
Following a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in October, Mississippi requested SCOTUS involvement to enforce the post-Election Day grace period.
The state maintained that the delay in counting ballots was acceptable since “federal Election Day law only requires voters to cast their votes by Election Day,” asserting that the law does not necessitate the receipt of ballots.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated, “This is not a constitutional case. We are not assessing Congress’ power to regulate federal elections. The key issue here is whether counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later infringes upon federal Election Day regulations.”
She remarked that the current legal framework “does not override Mississippi law,” explaining that the federal regulations merely address the timing of elections.
Justice Barrett clarified that voters make their choice when they complete their vote, not when the ballot is received, highlighting a distinction that is essential to understanding this ruling.
In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, aggressively countered the majority’s arguments. He asserted that including late ballots undermines the concept of an Election Day, a claim he believes directly contradicts the law.
Justice Alito asserted that allowing late ballots would essentially delay the determination of voters’ choices until those ballots are counted, which federal law prohibits. He also pointed out that historically, American elections have been expected to be conducted and concluded on Election Day itself.
Alito underscored that for most of American history, voting was understood to be completed on Election Day, except for specific late-arrival instances.
He criticized the majority opinion for seemingly disregarding two centuries of election practices, emphasizing that when Congress established the Election Day law, it was clear that ballots should be received by that date.
The implications of this ruling, Alito warned, could lead to concerning consequences and raise many questions about election law integrity, potentially inviting voter fraud and eroding public trust in the electoral process.
He expressed concerns about the difficulty of verifying identities in mail-in voting and noted that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day increases the risks of fraud, particularly as primary results may be known by that time.
