The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 to allow states to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, rejecting a challenge brought by the Republican National Committee that would have affected voting rules in more than a dozen states. The decision centered on a Mississippi law providing a grace period for late-arriving absentee ballots.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, holding that nothing in federal election-day statutes prohibits states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after polls close. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices to form the majority.
"The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose," Barrett wrote in the opinion.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative officials and election security advocates criticized the ruling as a threat to election integrity. The Republican National Committee had argued that accepting ballots after Election Day could delay results for weeks and erode public confidence in the electoral process.
"Many States can't conclude their elections for weeks after election day because they're still receiving ballots from voters," the RNC wrote in a brief to the court. "Weeks after the 'day for the election' has come and gone, the elections in those States continue."
Four conservative justices dissented: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
"It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts," Alito wrote in his dissent. "And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government."
The dissent noted the ruling leaves unresolved how states should handle ballots arriving days or weeks after Election Day, potentially creating inconsistent rules across jurisdictions.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic officials and voting rights advocates praised the ruling as a victory for ballot access. Supporters argue that mail-in voting expands participation and accommodates voters who face logistical challenges reaching polling places on Election Day.
Nineteen mostly Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia backed Mississippi's effort to preserve its grace period law, arguing that federal statutes address when elections occur rather than when ballots must be received.
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who supported reversing the lower court ruling, told the court that as long as ballots are filled out by Election Day, they should be counted. He argued that the 5th Circuit's decision "defies statutory text, conflicts with this Court's precedent, and — if left to stand — will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications."
President Trump has issued executive orders calling for an end to mail-in voting, alleging the practice opens the door to election fraud.
What the Numbers Show
The 5-4 split represents a familiar ideological alignment on election-related cases. Federal law from 1845 established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day, and Congress extended that requirement to congressional elections in 1872.
The case originated when the Mississippi Republican Party and RNC sued the state, arguing its grace period for mail-in ballots violated federal statutes. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mississippi, saying federal law preempted state law and required all ballots to be received by Election Day.
Nineteen states plus Washington, D.C., filed briefs supporting Mississippi's position, while the RNC led the challenge seeking to eliminate extended ballot receipt windows across multiple states.
The ruling affects more than a dozen states that currently allow grace periods for mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, provided they were postmarked by the deadline.
The Bottom Line
The decision preserves existing state practices allowing mail-in ballots to arrive after polls close, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. It does not establish a uniform national standard but rather affirms that federal law does not preempt state grace period laws.
Election officials in affected states will continue operating under current rules for upcoming elections. Critics of the ruling say it creates uncertainty about ballot counting timelines and could delay final results. Supporters say it protects voter access without compromising election integrity.
The justices declined to resolve broader questions about how many days after Election Day ballots may arrive and still be counted, leaving those issues for future cases.