Supreme Court Case Could Impact Vote Counting Delays

In Washington, a significant lawsuit poised to be discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court may resolve ongoing delays in vote counting that some believe undermine voter confidence, particularly highlighted by the recent Los Angeles mayoral election.

The court is set to hear arguments in March regarding Mississippi’s Watson v. Republican National Committee case. This case could potentially block the counting of mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day.

Mississippi is among at least 14 states, which also include California, New York, Texas, and D.C., where early voting is restricted to envelopes that are postmarked by Election Day. On top of that, about 30 states provide some grace period for absentee voting, accommodating military personnel and citizens living abroad.

According to the RNC, this grace period—considered unconstitutional—has contributed to the uncertainty surrounding votes in Los Angeles. Almost a week after the election, residents are still waiting to learn if candidates Spencer Pratt and Nisya Raman will proceed to a runoff against current Mayor Karen Bass.

“California is a prime example of the Democratic Party’s failures,” stated RNC Chairman Joe Gruters. He expressed that the delay in counting, nearly a week post-primary, is unacceptable. Gruters emphasized the need for prompt and reliable election results.

The case raises an important question: Should a federal law defining Election Day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November apply solely to ballots that arrive before that date, regardless of proper postmarking?

Surveys suggest many Americans favor mail-in voting, but Republican attitudes toward absentee ballots have shifted negatively over the last decade. To highlight election delays, the RNC launched a site tracking how long it takes for votes to be counted.

In response, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin accused the RNC of aggressively attacking mail-in voting. During preliminary discussions, some conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared to lean toward the RNC’s stance, although there were concerns about the argument that early voting might be constitutional even if late voting is not.

“It’s possible to receive ballots sooner, but drop boxes should be closed on Election Day,” U.S. Attorney General John Sauer remarked. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned why such procedures are allowed if there’s a standard historical approach in place.

Some justices, including Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, seemed more favorable to arguments aimed at restoring public trust in elections. Conversely, liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson hinted at doubt regarding the line of reasoning, pointing out that federal law allows flexibility in extending the voting timeframe under extraordinary conditions.

Kagan noted, “It’s hard to believe we would dismiss such a practice, prevalent in 30 states, based on this evidence.” The final decision from the Supreme Court on the Watson case is expected soon, possibly before the justices take their summer break. This decision could be specific to Mississippi or set a precedent affecting other states.

Some advocates argue that enhancing funding for election infrastructure and personnel could expedite the counting process. Meanwhile, former President Trump took to True Social, expressing confidence in Pratt’s chances for the runoff despite the current uncertainty surrounding the results.

Previously, both Trump and the Republican Party have cited issues with the 2020 presidential election’s mail-in ballot counting as evidence of unfair practices, although investigations, including those led by former Attorney General Bill Barr, found no substantial fraud to alter the election’s outcome.

In Georgia, parts of the election process have come under scrutiny since Trump’s return to the White House, although numerous legal efforts have failed to shift the final vote tally that confirmed Biden’s win.