Debate Over Ballot Deadline Strikes During Anniversary of Democracy

The United States, often hailed as a leading democratic republic, marked its 250th anniversary last Saturday. Yet, the week leading up to this celebration was overshadowed by significant developments in election laws that many advocates for election integrity might prefer to forget.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Watson vs. RNC, allowing states to count non-military mail-in ballots that arrive well after Election Day. On the same day, Alaska’s Supreme Court also decided that a Senate candidate sharing a name with a current lawmaker can remain on the ballot, presenting yet another setback for those pushing for stricter voting regulations.

Meanwhile, the SAVE America Act, aimed at mandating voter ID and proof of citizenship for voter registration on a national scale, is still pending in the Senate with an unclear path forward.

Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project (HEP) Action, expressed disappointment regarding the ruling. He stated in an interview that there really shouldn’t be any justification for states, particularly conservative ones, to continue allowing late voting deadlines. He pointed to states like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Texas, which are among the 14 that will accept mail-in ballots post-Election Day.

“I think this serves as a reminder that we can’t just rely on the courts to fix these problematic policies,” Snead said. “We have to take the initiative ourselves. That’s how democracy works.”

He emphasized that these laws permitting ballots to be counted after Election Day should be subject to repeal by state legislatures if they wish. Some states have already taken steps to eliminate these extensions; states like Kansas, Ohio, and Utah all enacted legislation to curb late voting. “It seems that some red states are lagging behind in this regard,” he noted.

“I believe it’s time to reassess certain laws regarding voting in the U.S.,” Snead continued. “You can argue about exceptions, like military personnel overseas, but if you live nearby, voting on Election Day should be entirely feasible.”

Snead also highlighted that the recent ruling presented an unusual coalition—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and three liberal justices formed a slim 5-4 majority, which surprised many observers. Barrett had penned an opinion supporting the decision to extend voting deadlines.

He mentioned Mississippi, which has already begun efforts to tighten mail-in voting rules in response to the court ruling. The governor has asked the legislature to repeal a recent law that allowed for extended mail-in voting, arguing that such measures were enacted only last year amid the pandemic.

“It’s evident that there are ample incentives for red states to reevaluate these deadlines in the next Congress,” Snead remarked.

Republican Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi quickly urged legislators to retract the law, stressing that mail-in ballots should reach election officials by 5 p.m. on Election Day to count.

Snead criticized existing laws in many blue states, arguing they fail to increase voter turnout or enhance the election process. Rather, he believes they contribute to confusion, particularly in states like California, known for its lengthy vote counting.

“Last-minute ballot requests, especially just days before an election, create a nightmare scenario where ballots could get stuck in the mail,” he explained. “It seems ridiculous that we only allow a one- or three-day grace period for ballots. We should really consider extending that window to five, ten, or even fifteen days.”

Moreover, Snead stressed that laws requiring timely ballot receipt ultimately cause confusion and hinder the voting process. He mentioned the court actions taken by HEP to challenge the late voting law in Mississippi and highlighted similar concerns raised in Alaska.

As for the political landscape in Alaska, the race has taken an interesting turn. Dan J. Sullivan, a Republican contender, is running against the incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan. Questions have arisen regarding the potential confusion created by sharing a name and whether that strategy might impact voter decisions.

Snead explained that the strategy of fielding candidates with similar names to mislead voters has historical precedence but ultimately is dependent on the race’s outcome. He noted that Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system could exacerbate such challenges.

Lastly, Snead posited that while the SAVE America Act would ideally establish national standards for voter ID and citizenship proof, much of the foundational work will need to happen at the state level. “States need to adopt strong measures to ensure that citizenship is verified before voting,” he concluded.