Supreme Court Upholds Mail-In Ballot Grace Periods

What Happened

On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Watson v. Republican National Committee that federal law does not bar states from counting mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. The ruling upholds a Mississippi law allowing such ballots to be counted up to five business days after the election, and by extension protects similar grace-period laws in roughly 17 other states and territories, along with additional states that have grace periods specifically for overseas and military ballots.

Background

Mississippi adopted its grace-period law in 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi sued in 2024, arguing federal law, which sets a uniform national Election Day, requires ballots to be received by that day, not merely postmarked by it. A district court upheld Mississippi’s law, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling federal law preempts the state law. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the 5th Circuit and reinstated the state law.

The Ruling

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Barrett wrote that federal election-day statutes require “the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” which is satisfied so long as Election Day is the deadline for casting a vote, not for the ballot’s physical receipt. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, with Kavanaugh joining most of the dissent. Alito argued that counting late-arriving ballots “effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made” and that the ruling “creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections.”

What Different Sides Are Saying

President Trump called the ruling a “tremendous loss” and renewed his call to pass the SAVE America Act, which would restrict mail-in voting with limited exceptions and add voter ID and citizenship-proof requirements. He separately acknowledged in the Oval Office that the bill likely lacks the votes to pass, citing four or five Republican senators opposed.

Mississippi’s own attorney in oral arguments reportedly told the Court that the federal government invoked anti-fraud concerns but “couldn’t show a single example of fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt in this century.” This is a specific factual claim made in litigation; I have not independently verified it beyond the court filing reference, but it aligns with the broader documented pattern that mail-ballot fraud in the U.S. is rare, a finding consistent across multiple independent studies over the past two decades.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a win for the principle that “if you cast your ballot on time, your vote will count.” This is his characterization of the ruling’s practical effect, which is a reasonably accurate summary of the holding itself.

Conservative reaction to Barrett was notably sharp. Sen. Eric Schmitt called it “a shockingly wrong opinion.” Commentator Krisanne Hall argued Barrett “quotes Alexander Hamilton… speaks of the Framers’ intent… but when the historical evidence becomes inconvenient, Barrett quietly sets it aside,” an assessment of her legal reasoning, not a factual claim. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, despite his own state’s law being upheld, said the legislature should repeal the grace period and require ballots received by 5 p.m. on Election Day, indicating disagreement with the policy even though the ruling favored his state’s existing law.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs previously noted that more than 250,000 ballots postmarked on time arrived after Election Day in Washington during the 2024 election, illustrating the practical stakes for states without such laws if the ruling had gone the other way. This is a state official’s own reported figure; I have not independently verified it beyond the citation.

Fact Check

The ruling is narrow and procedural: it decided that federal law does not prohibit states from setting their own ballot-receipt deadlines, not that mail-in voting itself is constitutionally protected or that all states must adopt grace periods. States remain free to set stricter receipt deadlines if they choose, as Mississippi’s own governor is now urging. Separately, the Supreme Court has asked the Trump administration to weigh in on a related but distinct case involving Pennsylvania’s ballot-envelope dating requirements, which remains unresolved and is a different legal question from the one decided here.

Discussion Questions

Have you ever used mail-in voting? If so, how was that experience?
Do you think mail-in voting irregularities played any role in the outcomes of recent elections?
Do you find Barrett’s reasoning (vote cast on time counts) or Alito’s dissent (must be received on time) more persuasive?
What do you think is more important in an election: making voting as convenient as possible or making sure all ballots are received by a strict deadline?
How might this ruling affect public trust in elections? Do you think it will increase trust, decrease trust, or have little effect?
Should each state be allowed to make its own rules about mail-in ballots, or should there be one national rule for everyone? Explain your opinion.
Why do you think mail-in voting has become such a politically controversial issue in the United States?
How should governments respond when some people believe election rules are unfair or reduce confidence in the voting system?
What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of allowing individual states to set their own ballot-receipt deadlines versus having a uniform national standard?
Imagine you are a lawmaker in your state or country. What rules would you create for mail-in voting, and why would you choose those rules?

Supreme Court Upholds Mail-In Ballot Deadlines, Rejecting GOP Challenge