Supreme Court Holds Federal “Election Day” Statutes Do Not Preempt State Receipt Deadlines for Timely Cast Mail Ballots

By Joseph A. Kanefield, Eric H. Spencer, Brett W. Johnson, and Carrie Schaffer

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Watson v. Republican National Committee, which reversed the Fifth Circuit in holding that federal election-day statutes do not prevent states from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but actually received by election officials on subsequent days.¹ In doing so, the Court rejected the Republican National Committee’s argument that 3 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 require absentee ballots cast in federal elections to be received by Election Day in order to be counted. Id. at 1, 5–9. As political parties, non-profit organizations, and independent expenditure political action committees continue to prepare for “get out the vote” efforts, understanding deadlines and ensuring proper communications with stakeholders and campaign spending efforts is important for operational success.

As discussed in our prior alert, the case arose from Mississippi’s absentee-ballot statute, which permits certain absentee ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and then received by applicable election official within five business days after the election.² The Fifth Circuit held that this post-election receipt deadline was preempted by federal election-day statutes.³ The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Barrett, writing for the Supreme Court, concluded that the federal election-day statutes regulate when voting must occur, not when election officials must receive absentee ballots.⁴ The Court emphasized that the “defining element of an ‘election’” is the electorate’s act of choosing candidates, and that “the electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.”⁵ In the Supreme Court’s view, when Congress set a uniform day for the “election” of Representatives, Senators, and presidential electors, it established the day by which ballots must be cast, not the day by which all ballots must physically arrive at election offices.⁶

The Supreme Court also relied on the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which refers to a state-law “deadline for receipt” of absentee ballots.⁷

According to the Court, those provisions “presuppose[] ballot receipt is a matter of state law” and would make little sense if the federal election-day statutes already imposed a nationwide Election Day receipt deadline.⁸

The Supreme Court further rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on historical practice, prior precedent, and policy arguments concerning election integrity and voter confidence.⁹ The Supreme Court’s decision reserves a significant measure of state control over absentee-ballot administration in federal elections.

Watson is likely to be consequential in future litigation over mail voting and absentee-ballot administration. While the Supreme Court did not foreclose other challenges to particular ballot-handling rules, it removed one of the most significant statutory arguments against state post-Election Day receipt deadlines. 

However, with the looming deadlines for upcoming 2026 elections, any further disputes as to election deadlines or other election administration requirements will likely need to await future elections pursuant to the Purcell Doctrine, which holds that any changes to election administration procedures too close to an election are prohibited, even if warranted or potentially required by correct legal interpretation. As such, candidate campaigns, political parties, non-profit organizations, and other independent expenditure groups should evaluate potential challenges to election administration laws and procedures in light of the Watson opinion and timing proximity to the elections.