SCOTUS Likely To Rule Against Prolonged Election ‘Grace Periods’: Report

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to decide a major election case that could reshape how states handle mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, asks whether states may count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive days later.

At the center of the dispute is a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and received within five business days afterward.

The Republican National Committee sued Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, arguing that federal election law requires ballots for federal office to be both cast and received by Election Day.

The RNC’s argument is rooted in federal statutes dating back to 1845, when Congress established a uniform national Election Day. Republicans contend that state-created “grace periods” for late-arriving mail ballots conflict with that federal deadline.

A federal district court initially sided with Mississippi, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later ruled in favor of the RNC. The Supreme Court then agreed to take up the case and heard oral arguments in March.

If the justices rule against post-Election Day receipt windows, the decision could force major changes in roughly 15 states that currently allow timely mailed ballots to arrive and be counted after Election Day.

Such a ruling would require election officials to rewrite procedures for federal races and possibly adjust local ballot-counting systems as well.

Court watchers increasingly believe the Supreme Court may side with the RNC.

The looming decision comes as Republicans continue raising concerns about California’s extended vote-counting process, where GOP candidates have seen early advantages shrink or disappear as ballots continued arriving after last Tuesday’s primary.

California allows mail ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days, a system conservatives argue keeps elections open too long and damages public confidence.

“Observers watching oral arguments in March expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will side with those seeking to get rid of grace periods, perhaps preserving them for those abroad,” said an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner.

“Unless the ruling is narrowly tailored, that means California will need to abandon its grace period — potentially as soon as November,” the op-ed continued.

Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog also noted after oral arguments that a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the challengers.

“After just over two hours of oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a majority of justices seemed to agree with the challengers – which included the Republican Party of Mississippi and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi – that the Mississippi law conflicts with federal laws that set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the ‘election day,'” she wrote.

Howe explained that Mississippi adopted the law in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many states expanded mail voting procedures under emergency conditions.

Four years later, the RNC, the Mississippi Republican Party, a Mississippi voter, and a county election official challenged the law. The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a separate lawsuit that was later combined with the Republican case.

They argued that Mississippi’s rule clashes with the federal law enacted by Congress in 1845, which established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as “election day.” Congress later applied that same timing to congressional elections in 1872.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit agreed with the challengers, ruling that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day.

After the full appeals court declined to rehear the case, with five judges dissenting, Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices agreed in November to review the dispute.

Scott Stewart, Mississippi’s solicitor general, argued before the Court that states retain broad authority over election administration.

He told the justices that Mississippi’s law is consistent with federal election law because voters must make and finalize their choices by Election Day, even if the ballot arrives shortly afterward.

Paul Clement, representing the challengers, argued that when Congress established a uniform Election Day, the act of casting a ballot and the state’s receipt of that ballot were understood as inseparable.

Clement said the two were “so inextricably intertwined” that “no one would have thought of one without the other.”

For conservatives, the case goes far beyond Mississippi. It raises a central question about election integrity: whether Election Day still means Election Day, or whether states can continue extending ballot receipt deadlines long after voters have gone to the polls.

Supporters of the RNC’s position argue that prolonged ballot counting fuels distrust, creates confusion, and gives voters the impression that election outcomes can shift behind closed doors days after the official deadline.

A Supreme Court ruling against grace periods would mark a major victory for election transparency and a serious blow to states that have normalized extended mail-ballot counting since the COVID era.

The decision could also force California and other states to bring their procedures back in line with a stricter reading of federal law before future federal elections.

With President Donald Trump and Republicans continuing to press for stronger election safeguards, Watson v. Republican National Committee could become one of the most consequential election-law rulings of the current Supreme Court term.