Posted on 03/26/2026 7:47:34 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The New York Times reported from the U.S. Supreme Court today that the Mississippi Elections Case would likely be overturned: Justices Appear Poised to Reject Mississippi Law on Late-Arriving Ballots.
Politico had a different headline: Supreme Court worries Trump's attack on late ballots could also threaten early voting.
Both showed how concerned the Left is about retaining provisions in numerous states that allow mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day to be counted and processed.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 17 states and territories, including California, Maryland, New York, and D.C., are overly generous in accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day.
In Illinois, ballots must be received up to 14 days after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. Maryland and D.C. allow for a ten-day grace period.
Ultra-conservative Mississippi joined the cabal of 17 states during the COVID pandemic. It passed a law allowing absentee/mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive up to 5 business days after Election Day.
Our editorial, published after the November 2022 midterms, decried this policy in the name of racial justice. These states have deviated from the 30 states - including liberal states such as Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont - that require mail-in ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge against the Mississippi law. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, Mississippi argued that the law was reasonable and did not violate federal law. The challengers, however, maintained that federal law preempts state "grace periods" for late-arriving mail ballots, requiring election officials to receive those ballots on or before Election Day.
The idea of postmarked mail has a tradition of acceptance by government agencies. Tax returns must be postmarked before 11:59 p.m. on April 15. It is customary for postal employees to stand at mailboxes on April 15 to postmark these returns, so taxpayers are assured their returns were accepted before the deadline.
However, ballots are not tax returns. Taxpayers do not particularly care when their returns are processed; voters do. We want the results announced the same night, and not have the winner flipped after counting late-arriving mail-in ballots.
In the 2020 election, President Trump was leading on election night, with states having counted both early votes and election-day ballots. However, as the results of late mail-in ballots trickled in, three states that were too close to call gradually turned away from Trump. Joseph Biden won the presidency by a narrow 44,000-vote victory in those three states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.
The oral arguments produced interesting remarks from all sides.
Paul D. Clement, arguing for the challengers, including the Republican National Committee, raised points we have made in our editorials over the years, including the one that universal mail-in voting and lenient ballot-processing laws threaten election integrity.
"All agree that elections for federal office have to end on the day of the election specified by Congress, and all agree that you can't have an election unless you receive ballots, and there must be some deadline for ballot receipt. Nonetheless, Mississippi insists that ballots can trickle in days or even weeks after Election Day. That position is wrong as a matter of text, precedent, history, and common sense."
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart (arguing for the petitioner) stated that "The Election Day statutes adopt a simple rule: States must make a final choice of officers by Election Day. That is the plain meaning of an election." In effect, he was saying that state rules trump federal election laws, and the liberal justices repeatedly agreed with him.
Justice Samuel Alito echoed our concerns about election integrity when he said: "Confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined if the apparent outcome of the election on the day after the polls close is radically flipped by the acceptance, later, of a big stash of ballots."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with Justice Alito: "If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode."
Chief Justice John Roberts (probing the implications) said: "If Election Day is the voting and taking, then it has to be that day."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett (pressing on historical practices and early voting) challenged the idea that receipt/counting could extend beyond Election Day without issue, highlighting that past processes completed verification and acceptance on Election Day.
Justice Elena Kagan made an academic point appropriate for a law school class: "How is it that you're not taking issue with early voting?... When I early vote, I'm not doing that [casting and receiving on Election Day]." The point did not make sense because ballots received before Election Day would still get counted on Election Day. The case concerned only ballots that arrived after Election Day.
The conservative justices appeared particularly skeptical of the grace period, focusing on the need for a single, final Election Day to preserve trust and avoid post-election flips or perceptions of fraud. Liberal justices pushed back on potential disenfranchisement and consistency with other voting practices. The full transcript is available on the Supreme Court's website for deeper reading.
A decision is expected in June or early July, in time to affect the 2026 elections.
If people are to damn stupid to mail their ballots on time their to damn stupid to vote!
Wasn't this overridden by the 17 amendment?
Before the 17th, the only "place" to elect Senators was in the State Legislature.
After the 17th, this was changed to wherever voters voted for everything else, in diverse and numerous places.
That is absurd on the face of it. How could doing your civic duty a few days earlier be "disenfranchisement"?
The only "disenfranchisement" would be to Democrats who won't be able to stuff the ballot box after the close of "Election Day."
What is not being reported is that the post office no longer postmarks mail on the day it’s received...
It is now postmarked on the day it’s “processed”...which can be days later...
Counting in FL 2020 ended on Election day. It was the re-counting that continued on for a while.
Counting in FL 2020 ended on Election day. It was the re-counting that continued on for a while.
Doesn’t the Constitution establish an Election Day not a week. Votes should be cast that day period with exceptions only for military forces abroad or at sea.
It’s not really “endless” counting. It’s counting until the D wins. Then it stops.
The 17th amended Article I Section 3 Clause 1: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
Maybe you see something that I don't?
-PJ
The US code specifies the date the election is to be held. The states AFAIK are not disputing that. The dispute is over whether that date applies to all ballots submitted or is a state allowed to extend the time given past election date for votes cast by mail (for absentees or otherwise).
Federal law allows for absentee voting by military. So it can be argued states can also extend the time they allow.
I think there could be a way for the federal government to codify who is eligible to vote by absentee ballot in Federal elections.
I don't think that's going to be the case.
Statute may say one thing, but it has to comply with the Constitution -- not the other way around.
What you're apparently missing is that it doesn't matter what a class of voter allows (like military ballots), the Constitution says that Congress has the say on federal ballots when it comes to the time (date) of voting, and that date has been set as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November on even numbered years.
Any state law that allows votes to be received past that date violates the Constitution for federal elections. The only solution is to give the voter multiple ballots; one for federal elections that must be received by election day, and one for state races that can be received up to any day that the state legislature chooses.
-PJ
As long as electronic voting machines are still in use, elections will still be stolen.
You misquoted the amendment, it didn't JUST take out "chosen by the legislature thereof" , but REPLACED it "elected by the people thereof"..."
Since the people vote all over the state in their various election halls, voting booths, polling places etc., that means the state legislatures get to also decide the PLACE Senators are voted for, not just time and manner.
Seriously, am I only one seeing that?
BTW, I wish to see the 17th amendment repealed. Let the states decide, as was originally designed. Not some celebrity popularity contest.
None of what you're questioning has anything to do with the manner or time of the election, which was the part you cited in your initial post 23 rebuttal.
You questioned "place" but the issue of this thread is "time." I don't understand what you're still questioning when "time" is what Congress CAN regulate and the state, with extending mail-in ballot receipt, is clearly encroaching on the "time" that Congress already established as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
-PJ
Democrats claim that their voters are the smartest, but also claim that they’re too stupid to figure out how to register, how to get adequate ID or how to vote on time.
No, I understand the time and the manner clauses. It was said in the original article that the House had time, place and manner, while the senate only had time and manner. Not so?
Sorry, I got interrupted when answering you last time and I sort of lost not just my train of thought but the whole track.
I believe you are referring to 2.U.S.Codes 1&7. Those codes establish the election date for Senators and Representatives. 3 U.S. Code 21 establishes the date for the election of the President and Vice President.
I agree that there is one day on which votes are to be cast. The question is by what date must officials receive the ballots and do states have the authority to establish a grace period?
This section “... if the State modifies the period of voting, as necessitated by force majeure events that are extraordinary and catastrophic, as provided under laws of the State enacted prior to such day, “election day” shall include the modified period of voting.”
You may disagree but I think “period of voting” would be from the day votes are cast to when they are received by state officials. This means (IMHO) that Congress only intended that such force majeure events would be cause to count votes post election day. Provisions are already made in federal law for military and overseas ballots.
In other words, only acts of God are reason for a state to change how and when votes are cast and received. Such changes will be already defined and established in state law prior to election day. I think that pretty much means that is the only exception to when the period of voting is to be altered.
-PJ
I appreciate the complexities that you provided, and I admit that I was focused on Title 3, which was about Electoral College elections.
You make serious points that are worthy of robust debate, and you presented citations that I need to research on my own, as I said previously that I was focused on Electoral College elections. You accurately pointed out a blind spot of mine.
Still, even if we set Senate elections aside (the 17th amendment as a confounding variable), the question of Electoral College voting is clear. My point that the section that was repealed by Democrats that would have required Electors to be determined on election day or the state legislatures could select Electors still stands. Federal statute expected the elections for President to be resolved ON election day. If it wasn't, state legislatures could step in and choose Electors on their own. On this point, the only question is why would the Democrats repeal this statute unless they wanted an open-ended period to receive votes for Electors?
This then devolves to state election ballots, which have different statutes for when mail-in votes are cast, when they are mailed, when the post office postmarks the ballots, when the ballots are received and processed, when they are counted, and when the counts are reported up the chain to state election officials.
My point is that the states, as a matter of convenience, have bundled Electoral College votes, Congressional votes, and state election votes, onto a single ballot that is processed via state election laws. This has the potential to violate federal timing statutes, especially when the state tries to extend the ballot receipt deadlines for mail-in ballots.
The state can be gracious with late periods for state elections, but federal laws are specific and not subject to state laxity for convenience. Regarding Electors, Congress took away the state legislature's ability to name their choice of Electors if the state counts go on and on past Election Day. My question is why??
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.