Supreme court signals end to grace period for mail-in ballots

The Supreme Court appears poised to significantly restrict mail-in voting procedures, potentially impacting elections across the country. In a Monday hearing concerning a Mississippi law, a clear majority of justices signaled their intent to overturn the state’s five-day grace period for receiving mail-in ballots, a move that could have sweeping consequences for federal elections as early as November.

The core of the challenge: a federal law clash

At issue is a 2020 Mississippi law, enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days. The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, a Mississippi voter, and a county election official – joined by the Libertarian Party of Mississippi in a separate lawsuit – challenged the law, arguing it violates a federal statute from 1845 establishing the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as “election day.” This seemingly technical dispute carries enormous weight, given that more than a dozen states currently employ similar grace periods.

What’s particularly striking is the Court’s apparent disregard for any demonstrable evidence of fraud arising from the Mississippi law. Instead, justices seemed to base their arguments on speculative scenarios—hypothetical instances of voter recall and manipulation—that have yet to materialize. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, conjured a scenario involving a candidate's scandalous revelation the day after the election and a subsequent plea for voters to retract their ballots. The sheer absurdity of this hypothetical—and its echoes of political narratives we've all grown too familiar with—underscored the tenuousness of the argument.

Justice Alito, meanwhile, voiced concerns about the potential “abuse” of the concept of a “day,” raising the specter of elections stretching into an “election month,” a reality already partially present with early voting and extended ballot receipt deadlines. This observation, while superficially valid, feels less like a considered legal argument and more like a lament for a simpler, perhaps idealized, version of election administration.

The silence on fraud is deafening. Despite repeated invocation of the “fraud” theme by proponents of the challenge, not a single instance of fraud linked to post-Election Day ballot receipt has been cited this century. The Mississippi solicitor general’s attempt to remind the Court of this crucial fact seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Mississippi officials, anticipating an adverse decision, are already bracing for the impact. The Court’s ruling, expected by late June or early July, will undoubtedly reshape the landscape of federal elections, forcing states to reassess their voting procedures and potentially disenfranchising voters who rely on mail-in ballots.