Supreme Court hears case on late-arriving mail ballots

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case challenging state laws that count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received shortly after. The Republican National Committee argues that federal law requires states to discard such ballots, a stance that could have invalidated over 750,000 votes in the 2024 election. About half of states, including Texas and Mississippi, currently allow these ballots.

The case, originating from a suit by the Republican National Committee against Mississippi, reached the Supreme Court after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that late-arriving mail ballots are invalid. Judge Andrew Oldham wrote the opinion, interpreting federal election date laws to mean ballots must be received by Election Day, rather than cast by then. This ruling contrasts with historical practices, such as during the Civil War when many states counted absentee ballots arriving up to 20 days late, according to the Constitutional Accountability Center. Federal statutes governing mail ballots are silent on post-election receipt deadlines and explicitly defer to state decisions, the sources note. On the Amicus podcast, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick described the case as 'an existential challenge to mail-in voting' ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Co-host Mark Joseph Stern highlighted that the laws in question address USPS delays beyond voters' control, affecting states across political lines. The discussion links the litigation to the SAVE Act, pending in the Senate, which proposes restrictions on mail voting including discarding late-arriving ballots. Various versions of the bill face hurdles like the filibuster. Stern suggested the court case serves as an alternative path if legislation stalls, though he predicted the justices might overturn the appeals court due to its perceived flaws. Republicans view such measures as ensuring election integrity, while noting Democrats more often use mail voting. The timing raises stakes for upcoming midterms.

Mga Kaugnay na Artikulo

Illustration of lawyers arguing over redistricting maps in a Supreme Court-like courtroom, representing lawsuits in Florida, Utah, Virginia, and Louisiana ahead of 2026 midterms.
Larawang ginawa ng AI

Redistricting lawsuits mount ahead of the 2026 midterms, with major cases in Florida, Utah, Virginia and Louisiana

Iniulat ng AI Larawang ginawa ng AI Fact checked

Legal fights over congressional maps are accelerating in multiple states as both parties maneuver for advantage before the November 2026 elections. A high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case involving Louisiana’s congressional map could have broader implications for how race is considered in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 23 in Watson v. Republican National Committee, weighing whether states can count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later. The case challenges a Mississippi law allowing a five-day grace period, with similar rules in over 30 states. Conservative justices expressed concerns over fraud risks, while liberals defended state authority.

Iniulat ng AI

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 decision prohibiting Americans from suing the Postal Service in federal court for damages when carriers intentionally destroy or refuse to deliver mail. The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas in the case USPS v. Konan, interprets the Federal Tort Claims Act to cover such intentional acts under terms like 'loss' and 'miscarriage.' This comes amid concerns over mail voting integrity ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Virginia Democrats filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday seeking to overturn a state court decision that struck down a voter-approved congressional map. The move comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais effectively weakened the Voting Rights Act, prompting several Southern states to redraw districts.

Iniulat ng AI

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, Callais v. Louisiana decision striking down Louisiana's congressional map as a racial gerrymander (as covered in this series), experts warn the reinterpretation of Voting Rights Act protections could endanger minority representation nationwide. Louisiana has extended suspension of its U.S. House primaries until at least July 2026 amid expectations of a redraw.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed its Louisiana v. Callais decision to take immediate effect, enabling states to redraw congressional maps in ways that could reduce minority representation.

Iniulat ng AI

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29 that Louisiana's congressional map, which included a second majority-Black district, constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires proof of intentional discrimination, not just disparate impact. The decision, in Louisiana v. Callais, limits race-based redistricting and prompts new maps in several states.

 

 

 

Gumagamit ng cookies ang website na ito

Gumagamit kami ng cookies para sa analytics upang mapabuti ang aming site. Basahin ang aming patakaran sa privacy para sa higit pang impormasyon.
Tanggihan