In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held that federal Election Day statutes do not require ballots to be received by Election Day. This decision provides states with the flexibility to continue mail-in ballot initiatives.
The Lead-Up to Watson
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Congress passed a series of laws that set a single day for all federal elections: the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Historically, both before and after Congress passed its first Election Day statute, most election activities throughout the nineteenth century were conducted in person and completed on a single day. Although voting practices evolved throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed the way many Americans cast their ballots. Many states changed the rules for mail-in voting by allowing some mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day.
One such state was Mississippi, which accepts mail-in ballots up to five days after Election Day, so long as those ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day. In 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC), along with the Mississippi Republican Party, sued Mississippi and Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson over Mississippi's mail-in ballot law.
The RNC claimed that the federal Election Day statutes preempted Mississippi's law. According to the RNC, the definition of "election" under the statute included both casting and receiving ballots. Thus, by setting a specific day for elections, the statutes set a deadline for accepting mail-in ballots. To support its argument, the RNC referenced the predominance of Election Day ballot receipt deadlines throughout the nineteenth century and claimed that allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day further undermines the public's confidence in election integrity. The district court granted summary judgment to Mississippi, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Mississippi's law was preempted by the federal statute.
Justice Barrett's Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal Election Day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from accepting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received five days after. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett rejected the RNC's interpretation of "election," stating that the ordinary meaning of "election" "has always been the electorate's choice of a candidate." That "choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received." The Court also noted that although the Constitution grants Congress the authority to set the time of elections, the "responsibility for the mechanics" of conducting elections "belongs to States." In support of the conclusion that Congress deferred ballot receipt deadlines to state law, Justice Barrett cited the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). Under that statute, several provisions treat deadlines for ballots as matters of state law. Thus, to comply with the federal Election Day statutes, states need only require that ballots be cast before or on Election Day.
While the Court recognized the RNC's historical practices and precedent arguments, they alone could not carry the day. The Court acknowledged the predominance of Election Day ballot receipt throughout the nineteenth century but was not convinced those historical practices showed a federal requirement. The Court emphasized that "historical practice, detached from statutory text, is not controlling."
Last, in response to the RNC's voter confidence argument, the Court held that while voter confidence was an important issue, it was a policy matter best left for Congress or state legislatures to address "through the democratic process."
Justice Alito's Dissent
Writing for the dissent, Justice Alito agreed that the statutory definition of "election" was the electorate's choice but argued that for the electorate's choice to be "authoritative" it had to include the combined acts of casting and receiving ballots "on election day." The dissent further argued that because there were inherent risks associated with mail-in voting, the majority's decision "creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government."
The Upshot
The Watson Court emphasized that its decision was limited to "whether counting ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later, violates the federal election day statutes." Still, the decision potentially impacts several pending mail-in voting lawsuits, including challenges to Illinois's and California's mail-in ballot receipt laws, which are based on the same federal Election Day preemption argument.
Venable continues to monitor election and political law developments from the Supreme Court and courts around the country that impact our clients and stakeholders.
For more insights into administrative and regulatory litigation, subscribe to receive insights and event invitations from Venable's Administrative and Regulatory Litigation team.
The authors thank Ben Kanter, a summer associate in our Washington, DC office, for his assistance in writing this article.