Mississippi’s law allowing a five-day window for mail-in ballots is under review after a federal appeals court struck it down.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 23 in a case that will determine whether ballots received after Election Day can be counted in federal elections, following a challenge to a Mississippi law that permits a five-day receipt window for mail-in ballots.
The dispute centers on a Mississippi statute enacted in July 2020 that allows election officials to count mailed ballots arriving up to five days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before that date. The policy was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide additional flexibility for voters using mail-in ballots.
The case reached the high court after a federal appeals court ruled the law conflicts with federal statutes establishing a uniform Election Day. Mississippi has argued that its law does not violate federal requirements and that states retain authority to regulate election procedures within their jurisdictions.
Eighteen states currently allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted under certain conditions, typically requiring a valid postmark. Mississippi officials have warned that invalidating the law could disrupt election procedures across those states.
The legal challenge was brought by the Republican National Committee, along with the Mississippi Republican and Libertarian parties, which argue that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day and preempts state-level extensions.
Three federal statutes establish the Tuesday following the first Monday in November as the official Election Day for federal offices, including congressional and presidential races. President Donald Trump reinforced that position in a March 2025 executive order directing federal enforcement of those statutes and stating that votes must be both cast and received by that date.
A federal district court initially upheld Mississippi’s law in 2024, finding that it did not conflict with federal election statutes or the Constitution. The court stated that, in the absence of federal regulation governing absentee ballot procedures, states retain authority to define the time, place, and manner of elections.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later reversed that decision, ruling that federal law establishing a uniform Election Day takes precedence over state provisions that extend ballot receipt deadlines.
Legal experts involved in the case have emphasized that the outcome hinges on statutory interpretation. In a brief, the Public Interest Legal Foundation argued that allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day undermines the purpose of federal law, which it said was designed to ensure finality and maintain public confidence in election outcomes.
Christian Adams, president of the foundation, said the issue is straightforward and centers on whether federal statutes require ballots to be received by Election Day.
Michael J. O’Neill of the Landmark Legal Foundation said extending ballot receipt deadlines creates inconsistencies across states and delays election finality. He said such practices conflict with Congress’s intent to prevent prolonged or rolling elections.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, also criticized the practice, stating that counting ballots arriving after Election Day weakens the concept of a fixed election date. Judicial Watch represents the Libertarian Party of Mississippi in the case.
Lisa Dixon, executive director of the Center for Election Confidence, said continued counting of ballots days or weeks after Election Day can affect public perception of election integrity. She said a timely decision from the Supreme Court would allow states to adjust procedures and inform voters of any changes.
Despite differing views on the policy, legal analysts involved in the case have indicated uncertainty regarding the outcome. Adams said predicting the court’s decision is difficult, describing it as “coin toss at best.”
The ruling is expected to have nationwide implications for election procedures, particularly in states that currently accept ballots after Election Day under postmark-based rules.
Original article
Comments