A coalition of election integrity organizations filed an amicus brief on Tuesday pressing the Supreme Court to uphold what they argue is a straightforward requirement of federal law: mail ballots must be received by Election Day, not days or weeks after.
The brief, filed in Watson v. Republican National Committee, backs a lower court ruling that found Mississippi's practice of accepting mail ballots up to five business days after Election Day violates federal statute. The Honest Elections Project, the Center for Election Confidence, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections all signed on in support of the RNC's position.
Oral arguments are scheduled for March 23. A decision is expected by the summer, in time to shape the rules for the 2026 midterms.
The RNC originally sued over Mississippi's allowance for counting mail ballots that arrive up to five business days after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by that date. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in the RNC's favor, finding that federal law trumps the state's extended deadline and requires ballots to be in hand by Election Day.
The case now sits before the Supreme Court, and the stakes stretch well beyond Mississippi. Fourteen states and Washington, D.C., currently count ballots received after Election Day if postmarked on time. A ruling affirming the 5th Circuit's decision would force those jurisdictions to change their practices or face legal challenges.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told Fox News Digital:
"Counting ballots that are received after Election Day unnecessarily damages public trust in election outcomes, delays results, and violates the law."
He's right on the trust question, and the data backs it up. Americans have watched elections drag on for days and sometimes weeks past Election Day as late-arriving ballots trickle in and shift margins. That spectacle does not inspire confidence. It breeds suspicion, whether warranted in a given race or not.
The legal fight matters, but it's worth noting that the political ground has already shifted. Since the 2024 election, four Republican-controlled states, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota, have moved to require ballot receipt by Election Day. They didn't wait for the Supreme Court. They read the statute, recognized the problem, and acted.
That trend underscores something important: this is not a radical legal theory. It is the plain reading of federal law, supported by a Supreme Court decision from three decades ago in Foster v. Love. The novelty isn't in requiring ballots by Election Day. The novelty was in the 14 states that decided to ignore that requirement.
Supporters of the RNC's position acknowledge that curtailing acceptance of late-arriving ballots would not guarantee that election officials finish tabulating on election night. Close races will still take time to count. Nobody is pretending otherwise.
But there is a meaningful difference between counting ballots that are already in hand and waiting for new ballots to arrive through the mail. One is a logistical reality. The other is a policy choice that introduces uncertainty, delays finality, and opens the door to questions about the chain of custody. Even the U.S. Postal Service has warned that postmarks may not reliably reflect when a ballot actually entered the mail system.
Military and overseas ballots, governed by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, would likely remain unaffected by a ruling in the RNC's favor. That's a reasonable distinction. Service members stationed abroad face genuine logistical barriers that domestic voters do not.
The left will frame this case as voter suppression. They always do. Any rule that requires citizens to meet a deadline, prove their identity, or follow basic procedures gets cast as an obstacle to democracy rather than a safeguard of it.
But the argument here is simple enough that it fits on a bumper sticker: Election Day is a day, not a suggestion. Federal law sets it. States don't get to unilaterally extend it by accepting ballots that arrive nearly a week later and calling that compliance.
Snead said a favorable ruling would "protect the rights of voters and the integrity of the democratic process, and ensure that it is easy to vote but hard to cheat in future elections."
That formulation captures the conservative position precisely. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from voting. Mail your ballot early. Drop it off in person. Use the systems available to you. But do it by the deadline that Congress established. That is not suppression. It is the bare minimum expectation of a functioning election system.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March. By summer, we'll know whether Election Day still means what it says.
