The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Watson v. RNC, a case that could determine whether states can count mail ballots that arrive days or weeks after polls close on Election Day. The case arrives at the Court as part of an ongoing legal battle over election administration, with a ruling expected in June.
The lawsuit was filed by the Republican National Committee and challenges extended ballot receipt deadlines in 14 states and the District of Columbia. These jurisdictions allow ballots to arrive between one day and two weeks after Election Day, with Mississippi offering a five-day grace period.
Under federal law, Congress established a uniform election date in 1845. The plaintiffs argue this establishes that ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted, and that states have unlawfully extended voting beyond the legally mandated date.
The Secretaries of State of Louisiana and Wyoming, in a brief to the Court, warned that extended deadlines risk creating post-election spectacles where late ballots flip results, undermining public trust in elections.
Most states currently require ballots to be received by Election Day. Last year, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota all adopted Election Day receipt deadlines through legislative action.
What the Left Is Saying
Voting rights advocates and Democratic officials argue that extended deadlines are essential to ensuring every vote counts. They contend that mail voting has grown significantly, and many voters rely on the Postal Service to deliver their ballots, which can face delays beyond a voter's control.
The states with extended deadlines — mostly blue states that adopted them recently — argue the policies are necessary for ballot accessibility. Many adopted their current rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, though some have maintained them afterward.
Proponents argue that extended deadlines protect voters from circumstances beyond their control, such as postal delays, illnesses, or work obligations that prevent early voting. They note that military and overseas voters already have extended deadlines under federal law, suggesting the system can accommodate flexibility.
Democratic secretaries of state in affected states have defended their laws as necessary measures to protect voter participation, arguing that disenfranchising voters due to mail delays undermines democratic legitimacy.
What the Right Is Saying
The RNC and Honest Elections Project argue that states with extended deadlines are violating federal law and undermining election integrity. They contend that the uniform election date established by Congress means ballots must be received by Election Day.
In their legal briefs, the plaintiffs argue that extending ballot deadlines creates confusion and erodes public confidence. They point to polling showing bipartisan concern about counting late ballots, noting that nearly 60% of Americans would not trust election results if ballots arriving after Election Day are counted.
Conservative legal scholars argue that the historical understanding of when a ballot is "cast" — when it arrives at an election office — should govern. Extending deadlines, they say, effectively extends the election itself, which Congress did not authorize.
The RNC has argued that states should instead encourage earlier voting and mailing of ballots, rather than extending deadlines. They note that when Ohio shortened its deadline from 10 days to four days, ballot rejections actually declined.
What the Numbers Show
Fourteen states and Washington, D.C., currently allow ballots to arrive after Election Day. The grace periods range from one day in Massachusetts to 17 days in Washington, D.C.
A poll by the Honest Elections Project found that 83% of Americans believe every ballot should be received by Election Day. Additionally, 78% said Election Day deadlines make voting more secure, and nearly 60% said they would not trust election results if late ballots were counted. Among Democrats surveyed, the responses were evenly split on trusting late ballot counts.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission data cited in legal briefs shows that Massachusetts, which established a three-day grace period, rejected as many late ballots in 2024 as it did in 2016 under its previous rules. Nevada rejected more ballots in 2024 than in 2016 after adopting a four-day grace period and all-mail elections.
When Ohio shortened its mail ballot deadline from 10 days to four days before an election, rejections declined. Iowa has seen similar results under its new Election Day deadline.
Seven of the 14 states with extended deadlines adopted their current policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to that, most required receipt by Election Day.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's ruling in Watson v. RNC, expected by June, will determine whether the 14 states and D.C. can continue counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. The decision could affect millions of mail voters in upcoming elections.
If the Court rules for the plaintiffs, states with extended deadlines would need to change their laws before the midterms. Critics note that states would have more than four months to adjust, while supporters of extended deadlines argue such a rapid change could cause confusion.
The case also raises questions about the Postal Service's role in ballot delivery. A new USPS rule means ballots may not be postmarked on the day they are mailed, creating complications for states trying to verify timely submission.
The outcome will likely have significant implications for election administration and voter access, with both sides framing the case as essential to either protecting voter participation or maintaining election integrity. The Court's decision will resolve a legal question that has divided states for years, potentially establishing a uniform national standard for mail ballot receipt.