SCOTUS Appears Poised to Reject Late-Arriving Mail-In Ballots Law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took up a pivotal election integrity case that could redefine how long “Election Day” actually lasts in federal contests.

At the center of the dispute is Watson v. RNC, a case challenging a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later. Similar policies are in place across 14 states and Washington, D.C., raising broader concerns about consistency in federal elections.

The key constitutional question before the Court is whether federal law establishing a single Election Day requires ballots to be both cast and received by that date—or whether states can extend the counting period beyond it.

During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito zeroed in on the plain meaning of the term “Election Day,” suggesting the language itself points to a firm deadline.

“We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the last of which, the second of which is ‘DAY’,” Alito said. “Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington’s birthday, Independence Day, and Election Day.”

“And they’re all particular days,” he continued. “So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.”

Attorneys for the Republican National Committee argued that Congress has already spoken clearly—federal law sets a single day for choosing electors and members of Congress, meaning ballots must be in the hands of election officials by the close of polls. Allowing ballots to trickle in days later, they contend, effectively extends the election beyond what the law permits.

Supporters of the Mississippi statute counter that states have long overseen the mechanics of elections, including ballot receipt deadlines. They argue that postmark-based rules are both lawful and necessary, particularly for military and overseas voters who depend on timely mail delivery.

Under current law, Mississippi allows ballots to arrive up to five days after Election Day, while states like Illinois permit acceptance for as long as 14 days, provided ballots are postmarked on time.

But critics warn that such policies undermine election integrity and public confidence by blurring the line of when voting actually ends.

Jason Snead emphasized that concern, stating, “Federal law clearly states that ballots must be received by Election Day. Despite this, states continue to allow absentee ballots to pour in days or even weeks late.”

The debate has intensified in the wake of expanded mail-in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many states relaxed deadlines to accommodate unprecedented circumstances. Now, the Court’s decision could determine whether those temporary measures become a permanent feature of American elections.

Defenders of extended deadlines also point to federal protections for military and overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which requires ballots to be sent out well in advance. They argue that strict receipt deadlines could unfairly disenfranchise those voters due to postal delays.

Polling data suggests strong public interest in the issue. A recent survey conducted for the Honest Elections Project found that 78% of likely voters believe requiring ballots to be received by Election Day improves election security—including large majorities of Republicans, independents, and even Democrats.

The Court is expected to issue its ruling by late June. The decision could have sweeping implications—either reinforcing Election Day as a firm national deadline or allowing states to continue extending the counting process beyond it.