Supreme Court allows states to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 ruled that states may count mail-in ballots received after polls close in federal races, upholding a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five business days later. 

The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and others challenged the state’s provision, arguing that it conflicted with federal statutes that set Election Day for federal contests. A lower court initially sided with the state, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision.

Majority says federal law does not set ballot receipt deadline

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal Election Day statutes do not preempt the state’s grace period and do not require ballots to be received by Election Day. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day,” Barrett wrote. “That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi. But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt.”

The ruling reverses the Fifth Circuit’s decision and preserves similar broad post-Election Day ballot receipt laws in 13 other states, plus Washington, D.C., according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The court noted that a broader group of 30 states accept at least some post-Election Day ballots from military and overseas voters.

The Trump administration and Republican groups had pushed to eliminate such grace periods nationwide ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, arguing that a uniform deadline would strengthen election integrity.

In a Truth Social post issued after the decision, President Donald Trump called the ruling a “tremendous loss” and reiterated his calls for lawmakers to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act. 

He said the act — which has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate — would require voters to show photo identification, provide proof of citizenship, and limit mail-in ballots to cases involving illness, disability, military deployment, or travel.

“There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” he said. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” 

>> Federal judge blocks Trump election integrity measures <<

Dissent warns ruling could undermine election confidence

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the June 29 ruling, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, and in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

Alito argued the majority’s interpretation breaks with historical practice and heightens vulnerabilities in the voting process.

“From this Nation’s founding until the last few decades of the 20th century — a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes — having an ‘election’ on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day,” he wrote.

Alito contended the ruling “spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity,” citing documented risks associated with mail-in voting, including past cases of absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, and schemes involving deceased voters. 

“Allowing absentee ballots to pour in over the days and weeks after election day, by which point preliminary election returns are being publicly reported,” he wrote, “creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further undermining the public’s confidence in election integrity.”