While the nation focuses on Congress and the fierce debate over the SAVE America Act, a critical lawsuit is playing out in the United States Supreme Court. This week, the Justices heard oral arguments in Watson v. RNC. The central question: Can states count mail ballots that arrive days — even weeks — after polls close? According to the law, history, and common sense, the answer must be no.
For most of American history, states required that ballots be received by Election Day. Congress acted as early as 1845 to set a uniform election date, and until the last few decades it was well understood that states cannot unilaterally extend voting beyond it.
Yet, that is exactly what 14 states and the District of Columbia are doing. Mississippi’s law offers a five-day grace period, while others range from as few as one day to two weeks or more. But the exact length of these periods is not important. Historically, a ballot has not been considered “cast” until it is in the hands of an election official. By extending their deadlines, states are illegally extending the election itself. As the Secretaries of State of Louisiana and Wyoming point out in a brief to the Court, this scheme risks delays and public spectacles where late ballots flip results after voting is over, both of which sap trust from the system.
Most states require ballots be received by Election Day, and that list is growing. Last year, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota all set Election Day deadlines. The public overwhelmingly supports this. A new poll by Honest Elections Project shows that 83% of Americans agree that every ballot should be received by Election Day, while 78% say Election Day deadlines make voting more secure. Nearly 60% say they would not trust election results if late ballots are counted, with Democrats evenly split — clear evidence of deep, bipartisan distrust.
Despite this, the (mostly blue) states with late deadlines argue they are crucial to ensure that “every vote counts.” Yet most sprang up in just the last few years; seven states only adopted them in the COVID era. If they were not necessary in 1900, 2000, or even 2018, how can they be indispensable now?
With more people voting by mail, critics claim extended deadlines guard against postal delays and ballot rejection. U.S. Election Assistance Commission data show otherwise. Massachusetts established a three-day grace period and rejected as many late ballots in 2024 as it did in 2016 under the old rules. Nevada rejected more in 2024 than in 2016 after adopting a four-day grace period and all-mail elections.
These states ignore an easy alternative: encourage mail-in voters to request and mail their ballots earlier. When Ohio moved from 10 days to just four, rejections declined. The same is true in Iowa under its new Election Day deadline. Clearly, voters adapt when laws change. When states move deadlines up, voters act sooner. When they push deadlines back, voters delay.
That sets them up for failure. Ballots frequently miss even extended deadlines due to mail delays. There are other obstacles, too: states typically require that late ballots be postmarked, but postmarking is inconsistent. Many ballots are never postmarked, or their marks are smudged or illegible. A new USPS rule means that ballots may not be postmarked the day they are mailed. In other words, late ballot laws leave voters one bad postmark away from disenfranchisement.
The Post Office has long admonished states to adjust their voting laws to fit the realities of today’s mail service. Many have refused. The Watson case could be the nudge they need to fix their broken systems.
With a ruling likely in June, critics are predicting chaos in the midterms. They ignore that states would have more than four months to adjust. They claim that military voters will be hard-hit but overlook that federal law requires overseas ballots be mailed 45 days before elections and specifically exempts them from the broader Election Day deadline.
Rather than stoking outrage, election officials in these states should focus on preparing for the change, or better yet, for legislatures to repeal their late ballot laws immediately. The public won’t look kindly on officials delaying action, especially if they aim to score points from entirely avoidable chaos.
For too many years, late ballot laws have turned elections into a guessing game while fueling doubt and distrust. Election Day deadlines are clear, simple to administer, and easy for voters to adjust to. With Watson v. RNC, the Supreme Court has a chance to end late ballots once and for all. Every voter should hope they do.
* * *
Jason Snead is the executive director of Honest Elections Project.
