\n<\/p>\n
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 <\/span>Watson v. RNC<\/span><\/i><\/a>. The central question: Can states count mail ballots that arrive days \u2014 even weeks \u2014 after polls close? According to the law, history, and common sense, the answer must be no.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Yet, that is exactly what 14 states and the District of Columbia are doing. Mississippi\u2019s 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 \u201ccast\u201d 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 <\/span>brief<\/span><\/a> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Most states require ballots be received by Election Day, and that <\/span>list is growing.<\/span><\/a> Last year, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota all set Election Day deadlines. The public overwhelmingly supports this. A new <\/span>poll<\/span><\/a> 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 \u2014 clear evidence of deep, bipartisan distrust.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite this, the (mostly blue) states with late deadlines argue they are crucial to ensure that \u201cevery vote counts.\u201d Yet most sprang up in just the last few years; <\/span>seven<\/span><\/a> states only <\/span>adopted<\/span><\/a> them in the COVID era. If they were not necessary in 1900, 2000, or even 2018, how can they be indispensable now?<\/span><\/p>\n With more people voting by mail, critics claim extended deadlines guard against postal delays and ballot rejection. U.S. Election Assistance Commission <\/span>data<\/span><\/a> 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 <\/span>more<\/span><\/i> in 2024 than in 2016 after adopting a four-day grace period and all-mail elections.<\/span><\/p>\n These states ignore an easy alternative: encourage mail-in voters to request and mail their ballots <\/span>earlier<\/span><\/i>. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 <\/span>rule<\/span><\/a> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n