Supreme Court Case Could Tighten Mail-In Ballot Rules in California & Other States
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared poised on Monday to require that mail-in ballots be received by election day to be counted, a ruling that could significantly impact voting procedures in California and 13 other states. The case, stemming from a Republican challenge to Mississippi’s election law, centers on whether ballots postmarked by election day but arriving several days later should be considered valid.
During oral arguments, the court’s six conservative justices expressed concerns about potential fraud and the integrity of election outcomes if late-arriving ballots are accepted. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Suggested that the current system effectively extends “election day” into “election month,” potentially undermining confidence in results. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch questioned whether voters might “recall” their votes after seeing election results, seeking to alter the outcome.
California currently counts ballots postmarked by election day that arrive within seven days, a practice that accounted for over 406,000 ballots – 2.5% of the total – in the 2024 election. Other Western states, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Alaska, similarly have similar provisions. A ruling against these practices could force California voters to mail their ballots much earlier to ensure they are received by election day.
The case before the court, Watson vs. Republican National Committee, originated with a challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing ballots to arrive up to five days after election day. While the Republican National Committee argues for a strict “received by election day” rule, Democrats and election law experts contend that such a change would conflict with over a century of established practice. They point to the historical acceptance of mail-in ballots for voters traveling or absent from their state on election day.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with the court’s other two liberal justices, advocated for judicial restraint, arguing that the Constitution grants states and Congress the authority to set election rules. She noted that Congress has previously revised election laws while being aware of varying state deadlines for ballot receipt. She added that the existing election laws did not empower the Supreme Court to create new rules.
A lower court district judge initially rejected the challenge to Mississippi’s law, but a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of three Trump appointees, ruled in favor of the stricter deadline. The case has largely been framed as a dispute between Republican-led states seeking to prevent potential fraud and Democratic states prioritizing broad voter access.
The challenge comes amid repeated claims of election fraud by former President Donald Trump, despite the lack of evidence supporting such allegations. Trump has previously called for “nationalizing” elections and requiring proof of U.S. Citizenship for voters, though his legal authority to do so is questionable. The influence of Trump’s rhetoric was apparent during the Supreme Court arguments, with justices raising concerns about the potential for manipulation of the election process.
While California officials have expressed readiness to resist any federal attempts to control the state’s voting system, as suggested by Trump, the Supreme Court’s decision will likely necessitate changes to the state’s election procedures. The court is not expected to rule on the matter immediately, leaving uncertainty surrounding the upcoming midterm elections in November.