The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with deep divisions over a Mississippi law permitting the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, a case that could shape how votes are handled nationwide and potentially affect control of Congress in upcoming midterm elections.
The justices spent about two hours hearing arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a dispute stemming from a 2024 challenge to Mississippi’s policy allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five days after Election Day, provided they were postmarked on or before that date.
Mississippi is among 14 states, along with the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories, that permit ballots to be tallied even if they arrive after Election Day, as long as they were mailed on time.
The case is unfolding as President Donald Trump has made mail-in voting a central issue during his second term, contending that such practices weaken trust in election outcomes.
During the hearing, the justices examined whether federal laws setting an Election Day override state rules that allow ballots to arrive later, and debated the meaning of “the election” in terms of when votes must be cast and received.
Several members of the court appeared receptive to arguments from the Trump administration’s attorney, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who warned that laws permitting late-arriving ballots could damage public confidence in election results.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both seen as potential swing votes, pressed attorneys on both sides with pointed questions.
“If Election Day is the voting and taking, then it has to be that day,” Roberts noted. He also questioned whether the interpretation of “Election Day” could impact early voting, asking lawyers whether their logic “requires a different consideration” for early ballots.
“Is there any limit to that? Fill out a ballot… and drop it off two weeks before?”
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about delays in finalizing election results, warning that “confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined,” a sentiment later echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Supreme Court justices signaled concern over the potential fallout from counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, as they weighed a challenge to Mississippi’s mail-in voting law — a case that could shape how elections are conducted nationwide.
The Supreme Court’s review of Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law is unfolding against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s push to curb mail-in voting during his second term, underscoring a wider national debate over how elections should be conducted.
Trump has taken steps to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, including signing an executive order aimed at eliminating them in federal elections. Several Republican-led states have already moved in that direction.
The dispute now before the justices, however, stems from a separate legal battle. The case centers on a challenge brought by the Republican National Committee against Mississippi’s voting law, which was adopted after the COVID-19 pandemic and permits ballots to be counted if they arrive up to five days after Election Day.
During oral arguments, Mississippi officials faced pointed questioning from conservative members of the court, who raised concerns about potential long-term consequences. The justices posed a series of hypotheticals about where such policies could lead, including scenarios involving early voting and ballots cast by American troops stationed overseas.
“If history teaches anything,” Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, “[it is that] as soon as anything is allowed, it will happen.”
Gorsuch continued to press attorneys on how far states could extend their deadlines for accepting ballots if the court were to uphold Mississippi’s law.
“If we were to rule against you, is there anything that would limit a state from allowing a receipt by election officials up until the day of the next Congress?” Gorsuch asked at one point during arguments.
Paul Clement, representing the Republican Party and Libertarian voters, argued that siding with Mississippi could create virtually unlimited flexibility for states in setting their own rules.
“Maybe the next state can figure out a way to have an election without anybody even receiving anything, I don’t know,” Clement said. “That seems to me to be a large reason why Election Day should mean ‘Election Day.’”
Justice Samuel Alito also appeared sympathetic to the argument that Election Day should be understood as a fixed point in time, rather than a window that stretches beyond a single day.
“We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the second of which is ‘day,’” Alito interjected, before listing “Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington’s birthday,” and Independence Day, he said, adding that “they are all particular ‘days.'”
“So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase ‘Election Day,'” he said. “I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.”
At its core, the case reflects an ongoing legal struggle over how much authority states should have in setting election procedures, particularly when federal contests are involved.
The issue arrives as the justices are also considering other major election-related disputes this term, including cases involving redistricting based on race and limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates.
Attorneys representing Mississippi argued that federal law requires only that ballots be cast by Election Day, not necessarily received by that date.
Lawyers for Mississippi told the court that an “‘election’ is the conclusive choice of an officer… So the federal Election-Day statutes require only that the voters cast their ballots by Election Day.”
“The election has then occurred, even if election officials do not receive all ballots by that day.”
Republican officials say the case is critical to maintaining trust in the electoral system and preventing prolonged vote-counting periods.
“Watson v. RNC is about a simple principle: ballots must be received by Election Day,” Ally Triolo, the communications director for the RNC’s Election Integrity efforts, said Monday. “This prevents elections from dragging on for days and weeks after voters have cast their ballots, causing confusion and undermining our elections.”
A decision from the Supreme Court on the issue of when mail-in ballots must be counted is expected by June.
The date post marked on the envelope can be post marked several days after the post mark date
Post marked is from the Post Office not postage machine.