Supreme Court to Decide Whether Federal “Election Day” Statutes Preempt State Mail‑In Ballot Deadlines

By Carrie Schaffer, Joseph Kanefield, and Eric H. Spencer¹

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has granted review of Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, a case stemming from Mississippi that examines the interaction between federal election-day statutes and state laws governing absentee and mail-in ballots.

The petition seeking review, filed on June 6, 2025, asks SCOTUS to decide whether federal statutes that set the date of federal elections preempt a state law that permits ballots mailed by the federal election day to be received and counted by election officials after that day.²

Oral argument is expected in March 2026, with a decision to be issued in advance of the 2026 midterm elections.³

Background

The petitioner, Michael Watson, Mississippi’s Secretary of State, asks SCOTUS to resolve a conflict between the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of federal law and the administration of elections under Mississippi state law.

Mississippi law requires that mail-in absentee ballots for federal offices be postmarked on or before election day but allows those ballots to be counted if they are received by election officials within five business days after the election. The Fifth Circuit, however, held that Mississippi’s statute is preempted where it allows ballots to be received and counted after federal election day. According to the Fifth Circuit, federal statutes require a uniform national election day on which not only the casting but also the receipt and counting of ballots must occur.⁴

The Mississippi Secretary of State contends that “Election Day” has long been understood as the deadline for casting a ballot, not the deadline for receipt or tabulation; that Congress has repeatedly accommodated post‑Election Day receipt practices, particularly for military and overseas voters; and that federal law does not impose a uniform cutoff. The Secretary further argues that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will create inconsistent treatment of ballots across states.

The respondents, including the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, argue that the federal election-day statutes establish a single, uniform day by which ballots for federal offices must be both cast and received, and that Mississippi’s five-day grace period conflicts with that requirement.⁵

According to the RNC, permitting ballots to arrive after election day effectively converts what Congress designated as a single election “day” into an extended election period that Congress did not authorize, and it contends that this practice undermines the finality the federal statutes are designed to secure.

Significance

This case is significant because it implicates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause and the traditional balance between federal authority and state control over election mechanics.⁶

Under the Elections Clause, states shall prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding federal elections, but Congress may “make or alter” those rules at any time. The Supreme Court has recognized that this clause gives Congress broad power over election mechanics, while leaving states as the day-to-day administrators absent conflicting federal law.⁷

What Is at Stake for States

A decision affirming the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation will require Mississippi to amend or abandon its five-business-day receipt grace period for federal races and will likely call into question similar laws in other states that allow ballots to arrive after election day.  Unlike Mississippi, Arizona law only allows mail ballots to be counted that are received by the county election officials no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day.⁸

A decision reversing the Fifth Circuit will validate Mississippi’s approach of accepting and counting ballots postmarked by election day and received within a short period afterward, and it will reinforce the authority of states to maintain limited grace periods for timely cast ballots.

Next Steps for Stakeholders

In light of the case’s potential impact, election administrators and state agencies may wish to plan for both a ruling affirming and a ruling reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision, including review of statutory deadlines. For example, a ruling that affirms the Fifth Circuit could impact the Arizona law that provides a cure period for ballots received by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day but contain a mismatched or missing signature.⁹

States and local jurisdictions may also need to assess whether interim regulatory guidance, legislative action, or emergency rulemaking will be required to implement any deadline changes in time for the 2026 election.

We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates when available.