The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday signaled doubts about state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, setting the stage for a potential ruling that could alter voting procedures nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The dispute focuses on a Mississippi law that permits ballots to be counted if they arrive up to five business days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked on time.
The challenge, brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and others, argues that federal law establishing a single Election Day requires ballots to be both cast and received by that date.
During oral arguments, several conservative justices expressed concern about how delayed ballot counting might affect public confidence in election outcomes.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether late-arriving ballots could raise questions about election legitimacy if results shift after initial tallies, pointing to scenarios where outcomes are “radically flipped” days later, according to Oregon Live.
Newsweek reported that Justice Brett Kavanaugh echoed those concerns, suggesting that extended counting periods could lead to more disputes and claims of irregularities.
He cited legal analysis suggesting that the longer it takes to finalize results, the more likely losing candidates or voters may challenge the outcome.
Liberal justices countered by emphasizing that states have long held broad authority over election administration.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that decisions on ballot deadlines should remain with states and Congress, while Justice Elena Kagan warned that limiting late-arriving ballots could have broader consequences for early voting and absentee systems.
The implications extend far beyond Mississippi.
At least 14 states, along with Washington, D.C., and several U.S. territories, currently allow ballots to be counted after Election Day if they are postmarked on time, according to The Christian Science Monitor.
Nearly 30 states also provide extended deadlines for military and overseas voters, raising questions about how those ballots could be affected.
The case arrives amid renewed national focus on election law, with President Donald Trump continuing to advocate for stricter voting requirements.
Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, arguing it undermines election integrity, though courts and election officials have repeatedly said there is no widespread evidence of fraud tied to the practice.
Mississippi officials defending the law argue that federal statutes require voters to make their choices by Election Day—not that ballots must be received by then.
State Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the court that election systems have historically allowed flexibility, as long as voters act within the established timeframe.
The justices also examined the practical consequences of any ruling.
Some raised questions about where to draw clear boundaries for ballot deadlines, while others noted that changing rules too close to an election could create confusion or disrupt established systems.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to weigh both sides, suggesting he could play a decisive role in the outcome.
A decision is expected by late June, giving states limited time to adjust ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Depending on the outcome, the ruling could force significant changes to how ballots are handled across multiple states, potentially reshaping long-standing election procedures and intensifying the national debate over election integrity.
WATCH:
