The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted for five days afterward, even as a federal appeals court found South Carolina’s absentee voting rules illegally discriminated based on age.
The Supreme Court’s decision preserved Mississippi’s practice of counting late-arriving mail-in ballots, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day, and immediately protected similar policies in at least 14 states. The 5-4 ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clarified that federal election statutes establish the deadline for voters to make their choices, not for states to receive ballots, leaving states with broad discretion over ballot receipt deadlines.
Justice Barrett stated in the majority opinion, “The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day... But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt.” This reasoning overturned a lower court that had sided with challengers to Mississippi’s law, and triggered ripple effects across states that allow grace periods for ballot receipt. Just The News and the Washington Examiner both noted the immediate impact for upcoming elections in states relying on similar policies.
The ruling arrived as Republicans, including President Trump, urged Congress to tighten mail-in ballot rules and require proof of citizenship for federal elections. The case, known as Watson v. RNC, saw the Republican National Committee challenge Mississippi’s five-day grace period, but the Supreme Court found no federal law requiring ballots to be received by Election Day. As the New York Post reported, the Court’s majority insisted, “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”
For election officials in states with remote communities and transportation challenges, the ruling was a relief. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs told AP News, “The thousands of voters whose ballots are postmarked on time but received after Election Day still have their voices heard.” The decision also prevented rushed changes to voter education and election administration in places like Illinois, California, Alaska, and Washington, where similar grace periods remain on the books.
While the Supreme Court protected Mississippi’s ballot counting law, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a South Carolina provision that granted absentee-by-mail voting to residents aged 65 and older, while subjecting younger voters to more restrictive eligibility, paperwork, and deadlines.
U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the court’s opinion, “By granting voters aged sixty-five and older unconditional access to absentee-by-mail voting while conditioning that same option for younger voters on eligibility categories, documentation, and a rigid deadline, the state allocates voting opportunities unequally based solely on age.” The ruling cited the 26th Amendment, which prohibits age-based discrimination in voting for citizens 18 and older.
The appeals court sent the South Carolina case back to a lower court, instructing that either all voters must be permitted to vote absentee without restriction, or none may do so. South Carolina officials signaled intent to appeal, setting up a potential Supreme Court showdown. This echoes other recent legal battles involving federal courts and state election laws, such as those covered in our report on multiple appeals courts rejecting Trump administration policies and the path to high court review.
The Supreme Court’s Mississippi ruling did not affect the South Carolina case directly, but both decisions highlight the ongoing struggle to balance election security, voter access, and state autonomy. Mississippi’s law, and similar policies in more than a dozen states, survived federal challenge, at least for now. At the same time, state measures that treat voters differently based on age face new constitutional scrutiny.
Legal experts noted the significance of the Mississippi decision in upholding state authority over election administration, even as litigation continues to reshape the rules for absentee and mail-in voting nationwide. As seen in the Supreme Court’s recent mail-ballot executive order ruling, federal courts have played a pivotal role in defining the limits of executive power and state discretion in election matters.
The legal landscape is likely to stay unsettled, with further appeals expected in South Carolina and other states. This follows a pattern of high-profile election cases, such as those involving Trump administration efforts before the Supreme Court on issues ranging from immigration to military policy, as covered in our article on the transgender military policy litigation.
The Supreme Court’s Mississippi ruling underscores a core principle: states retain significant latitude in setting election procedures, so long as they do not violate explicit constitutional protections. Justice Barrett’s opinion emphasized that Congress, not the courts, must act if tighter ballot-receipt deadlines are desired at the federal level. This matches past moments when the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump administration policies, as in the federal judge’s acknowledgement reported in our coverage of the Haiti TPS case.
As November approaches, voters, lawmakers, and courts will be watching closely to see if further changes arrive from Congress or the judiciary. With election rules constantly under challenge, only clear, consistent standards rooted in the Constitution and fair process will restore faith in our system.
When partisan interests push for last-minute rule changes or special treatment, it’s the law-abiding voter who pays the price, America deserves better than uncertainty and gamesmanship at the ballot box.