The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of arguments Monday in a closely watched case that could reshape how elections are conducted across the country, weighing whether states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
At the center of the case, Watson v. RNC, is a simple but consequential question: Does federal law require ballots to be received by Election Day or merely sent by then?
“Ballots must be received by Election Day,” a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee said in a statement ahead of arguments, warning that extended deadlines allow elections to “drag on for days and weeks … causing confusion and undermining our elections.”
The case originates in Mississippi, where a Republican-controlled legislature overwhelmingly approved a five-day grace period in 2020, allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive later.
Now, that same law is being challenged by the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi GOP, creating a rare intra-party split. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, is defending the law, warning that striking it down could have “destabilizing nationwide ramifications” if left in place. “The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — election day can swing close races and change the course of the country.” More than 30 states and Washington, D.C., currently allow some form of late-arriving ballots, typically requiring they be postmarked by Election Day.
When a 15-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether to rehear a three-judge panel’s ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee last March, the court split along ideological lines. The panel’s 10 Republican-appointed judges voted against rehearing the case, while the five Democratic-appointed judges dissented. The decision drew attention in part because of its starkly partisan divide, though such splits have become more common in politically charged cases, particularly those involving election law.
During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch zeroed in on what he viewed as a potential flaw in Mississippi’s position. If casting a ballot simply requires handing it off for delivery by Election Day, Gorsuch asked, where does that logic end? Could a voter give their ballot to a neighbor? A notary? Even a Supreme Court justice? When Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart began to respond, “Two points, Justice Gorsuch —” the justice cut him off: “Pick your best.”
Pressed further on whether a Supreme Court justice would qualify under that logic, Stewart replied, “Pretty official.” Gorsuch scoffed at the reply, underscoring concerns that the state’s rule lacks a clear limiting principle.
Stewart is no stranger to high-profile Supreme Court battles. He previously argued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the landmark case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, delivering a major victory for the conservative legal movement.
A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Stewart has quickly become one of the right’s most prominent courtroom advocates. This case marks his second appearance before the justices, with another scheduled next week.
At the heart of the case is a disagreement over what “Election Day” actually means. The RNC argues that Congress established a single day for federal elections, and that both voting and ballot receipt must be completed within that window. “Elections must end on Election Day,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said.
Mississippi and allied voting rights groups counter that an election is defined by when a voter makes their choice, not when election officials receive or count the ballot. “Counting votes is not part of the election,” Fitch argued in court filings, noting that vote tabulation has always extended beyond Election Day.
Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, representing groups defending the law, argued that historical precedent supports Mississippi’s position and dismissed the lawsuit as a broader effort to restrict mail-in voting.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said the arguments framed what he views as the legal and practical stakes of the case. “Today’s oral arguments in Watson v. RNC clearly shows where the Supreme Court should come down: state laws that count ballots received after Election Day violate federal law, expose elections to delays, invite fraud, and fuel public doubt in the democratic process,” Snead said. He added that “recent polling confirms overwhelming and bipartisan public support for Election Day deadlines,” and argued that “only a ruling ending late ballots can uphold the rule of law and preserve public trust in elections.”
According to election data, hundreds of thousands of ballots in the 2024 election cycle arrived after Election Day but were still counted under existing state laws. Many of those policies were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, when mail-in voting surged, and postal delays raised concerns about disenfranchisement, particularly for military members and Americans overseas.
A ruling for the RNC could force states to abruptly change those systems just months before voters head to the polls. The Trump administration, while not a party to the case, weighed in forcefully in support of striking down the law. “Ensuring all ballot boxes close on the same day eliminates incentives and opportunities for fraudulent abuse,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the court.
President Donald Trump has also made opposition to mail-in voting a central political issue, repeatedly calling for its elimination and pushing congressional Republicans to pass stricter voting laws.
While a majority of Americans support access to mail-in voting, polling shows a sharp partisan split, reflecting broader distrust in election systems that has persisted since 2020. Voting rights advocates warn that eliminating grace periods could result in legally cast ballots being discarded due to postal delays, while Republicans argue that uniform deadlines are essential to restoring confidence in election outcomes.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in late June, before the court goes on recess for the term.
.png)
.png)
