The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday that state laws permitting the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward do not violate federal law. The decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee upheld Mississippi’s law allowing ballots to be counted up to five business days after Election Day if properly postmarked.
Core Facts:
- The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
- The dissent, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh partially concurring.
Deeper Dive & Context:
Legal Rationale:
The majority opinion emphasized that federal election-day statutes do not explicitly prohibit states from counting ballots received after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that date. The Court noted that Congress has not preempted state laws on ballot receipt deadlines, leaving discretion to state legislatures.
Dissenting View:
Justice Alito argued that the federal statutes require all votes to be cast by Election Day, implying that ballots received afterward should not be counted. He warned that the ruling undermines the principle of a single Election Day.
Political Reactions:
- Republican Response: GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), criticized the decision, arguing it erodes trust in elections and underscores the need for the SAVE America Act, a bill aimed at election integrity. Some conservatives, such as Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), expressed disappointment in Justice Barrett’s role in the ruling.
- Democratic Perspective: While not explicitly stated in the sources, the ruling aligns with Democratic-leaning arguments for expanding access to mail-in voting, though no direct quotes from Democrats were provided.
Long-Term Implications:
The decision may influence future election laws, particularly in states with strict ballot receipt deadlines. It also highlights the ideological divisions within the Court, with Barrett and Roberts joining the liberal justices in a contentious ruling.