Supreme court poised to rewrite election day rules
The Supreme Court appears ready to significantly curtail the window for receiving mail-in ballots, potentially impacting federal elections starting this November. In a Monday hearing regarding a Mississippi law, a conservative majority signaled a willingness to overturn the state’s five-day grace period for ballots postmarked by Election Day, a decision that could ripple across more than a dozen states with similar provisions.
A question of 'election day' – and a dash of hypothetical chaos
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centers on a 2020 Mississippi law designed to ease pandemic-era voting procedures. Now, Republicans—ironically including the Republican Party of Mississippi—are challenging the law, arguing it conflicts with an 1845 federal statute establishing the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day. What’s striking isn’t the legal argument itself, but the justices’ apparent lack of concern regarding the practical implications of their decision.
Instead of presenting concrete evidence of fraud linked to post-Election Day ballot receipt—a conspicuously absent element from the proceedings—justices seemed to conjure scenarios of potential manipulation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, proposed a fantastical scenario involving a candidate embroiled in scandal and a frantic recall effort, suggesting carriers could be pressured to withhold ballots. The absurdity of the hypothetical underscored a deeper issue: a reliance on speculative fears rather than empirical data. One wonders what kind of candidate would publicly implore voters to retract their ballots—a question that feels particularly pointed given recent political history.
Justice Alito, meanwhile, expressed anxieties about the abuse of the term “day,” suggesting a slippery slope toward “election month.” His concern, however, felt oddly disconnected from the reality of modern elections, where early voting stretches for weeks and ballots can arrive days—even weeks—after Election Day. He seems to be conflating accepted election procedures with a biblical timeline. The Mississippi Free Press is already bracing for an adverse ruling, a tacit acknowledgement of the impending shift.
Even Mississippi’s own solicitor general, Scott Stewart, felt compelled to point out the obvious: the plaintiffs haven’t presented a single example of fraud arising from post-Election Day ballot receipt in the 21st century. The absence of evidence, it seems, is no longer a barrier to judicial action.
The court’s impending decision – expected by late June or early July – raises a fundamental question: is ‘Election Day’ a fixed point in time, or a flexible concept? The answer, it appears, will be dictated not by historical precedent or practical considerations, but by a conservative legal philosophy that prioritizes hypothetical risks over the proven reliability of existing systems.