Watson v. Republican National Committee

    Issues

    Does federal law require mail-in ballots for federal elections to be cast and received by Election Day, or can states count ballots received after Election Day as long as ballots are postmarked by Election Day?

    Oral argument:
    March 23, 2026
    Court below:
    United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    In this case the Supreme Court will consider how federal election-day statutes impact state laws that allow for the counting of ballots received after Election Day. Currently, Mississippi allows mail-in ballots sent by Election Day and received at the appropriate location within five business days to be counted. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson argues that the act of marking and submitting a ballot constitutes a voter’s conclusive choice, or the casting of their ballot, and therefore Mississippi’s practice of receiving ballots after Election Day remains valid because ballots are still cast by Election Day. The Republican National Committee contends that Mississippi’s election laws violate federal election laws, because an election is only complete when all ballots are received, and thus receiving ballots later extends the election past the federally required Election Day deadline. The ruling could have major impacts on federal elections, as it would affect election practices in twenty-eight states, impact the feasibility of elections for both voters and administrators, and could further polarize issues of election integrity. 

    Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

    Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal Election Day to be received by election officials after that day.

    Facts

    Current Mississippi law allows mail-in ballots sent by Election Day and received at the appropriate location within five business days to be counted in federal elections. In January 2024, the Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party, James Perry, and Matthew Lamb (collectively “RNC”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, Justin Wetzel, and members of Harrison County’s Election Commission. In the trial court, RNC challenged Mississippi’s absentee ballot law, arguing that it is incompatible with federal election law: specifically 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7, and 3 U.S.C. § 1. RNC argued that these laws (collectively the “federal election-day statutes”) designate the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for candidates running for federal office. 

    Shortly after RNC filed suit, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar action against Watson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  Due to the similarities in the cases, the district court consolidated the lawsuits. Later, Vet Voice Foundation and Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans, two activist organizations, intervened and joined as defendants supporting the state of Mississippi and the Harrison County Board of Elections.

    On July 28, 2024, after both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Watson’s motion for summary judgment while denying RNC’s motion for summary judgement. The court held that Mississippi’s absentee ballot law was not preempted by the Electors Clause, the Elections Clause, or any federal election-day statutes. The court reasoned that Congress’s intent in establishing an Election Day law was to prevent multiple Election Days and to avoid inappropriate influence from states with earlier voting days. The court determined that state laws like Mississippi’s absentee ballot law do not raise these issues.

    RNC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which considered whether federal election-day statutes preempted Mississippi’s absentee ballot law. The Fifth Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part, remanding the case back to the district court. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that an “election” requires official action, finality, and consummation. The Fifth Circuit first determined that official action occurs when the government takes custody of a ballot. The Fifth Circuit then found that finality occurs when results are fixed and all ballots are available for counting, meaning that an election is final when all ballots are received. Finally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that an election is consummated when the ballot box is closed, which occurs when the state no longer receives ballots. The Fifth Circuit therefore held that for an election to be complete, all ballots must be received by municipal authorities. Since the Mississippi absentee ballot law extends when ballots can be received to after Election Day, the Fifth Circuit found that Mississippi’s absentee ballot law is preempted by federal election-day statutes.

    On June 6, 2025, Watson petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was granted on November 10, 2025. 

    Analysis

    PLAIN MEANING OF “ELECTION” IN FEDERAL STATUTES

    Watson argues that an “election,” according to the federal election-day statutes, is when voters choose a candidate. Watson supports this argument by highlighting that when Congress passed the federal election-day statutes, the dictionary definition of election was “the act of choosing a person to fill an office.” As a result, according to Watson, an election is completed when all voters have submitted their ballots to election officials, not when their ballots are received by the state, because people have made the final choice of who should fill an office once every ballot is submitted. Watson argues that once all voters submit their ballots to election officials, their choice of an officer is conclusive. Watson argues that federal election-day statutes are short, and do not include ballot receipt practices for states, so reading a ballot receipt deadline into the federal election-day statutes adds additional meaning that does not exist within the text. According to Watson, when Congress intends to regulate the timing and manner of elections, it does so explicitly in the statutory text. Watson highlights a similar 1866 Congressional statute that not only set a time for state legislatures to elect a Senator, but also intentionally dictated the manner of how voting would occur, whereas the federal election-day statutes intentionally leave the manner of vote receipt out of the federal election laws.

    RNC maintains that Election Day is the day when the final selection of officers happens but the final public selection of offices occurs after all ballots have been received and the ballot box is closed. RNC argues that Congress’s use of its Electors Clause and Elections Clause powers to limit when states may conduct their elections indicates that the federal election-day statutes were meant to restrict the state’s election of an officer, the state’s election being the closing of the ballot box. RNC counters Watson’s argument that “election” should be defined by the voter’s choice of an officer by pointing out that Congress intended to regulate when states could conduct elections, not how or when the individual voters would make their choices. RNC further argues that the absence of exceptions for pre-election steps, such as absentee ballots, and post-election steps, such as counting ballots, indicates that the federal election-day statutes regulate ballot receipt specifically. RNC also maintains that the definitions of election highlighted by Watson do not support the argument that a final choice of an officer is made when all ballots are submitted. According to RNC, Watson’s claim that a choice of an officer is final when all ballots are submitted is completely arbitrary, whereas defining finality as when ballots are received and marked follows a more commonly understood definition of election.

    HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ELECTION PRACTICES

    Watson argues that federal election-day statutes were meant to combat issues that resulted from states having different Election Days, not to regulate ballot receipts. Additionally, Watson claims that federal election-day statutes did not impose electoral practices on states, because election administration has greatly differed from state to state since the enactment of federal election-day statutes. For example, Watson provides that states have long differed on allowing absentee voting, and the manner in which absentee voting should occur. Additionally, Watson argues that when federal election-day statutes were enacted, ballots were always received by the state on Election Day because voting in person was required; however, this does not mean that the federal election-day statutes required ballot receipt on Election Day. As a result, Watson argues that ballot receipt should not be interpreted to be required on Election Day just because it was commonplace when the federal election-day statutes were enacted in the nineteenth century. Watson further argues that RNC has not presented any evidence that historical state laws requiring receipt of ballots on Election Day were enacted to comply with federal law. Watson highlights that if an election must adhere to every practice in place when the federal election-day statutes were enacted, then countless other current state election practices would not be allowed, including the secret ballot system and absentee voting.

    RNC contends that examining how a practice operated at the time of a statute’s enactment offers the clearest insight into its meaning because words used in statutes are traditionally interpreted as taking on their typical meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment. RNC claims that the states’ uniform, long-standing practice of ending ballot receipt on Election Day is convincing evidence that the practice of receiving ballots on Election Day is imperative to conducting an election. Even during the Civil War, when soldiers voted absentee in elections, RNC highlights that absentee voting laws still required their ballots to be received by Election Day. RNC claims these Civil War absentee voting laws were aimed not only at ensuring election integrity, but also at ensuring that ballots would be received by Election Day proving their commitment to the timeliness of elections. Additionally, RNC claims that historically, elections ended once all ballots were received, not marked, so an ordinary person would understand an election to require all ballots having been received by the state. RNC further argues that the fact that a few states allowed ballots to be received after Election Day during the twentieth century is not strong enough evidence to change the original public meaning of elections.

    MEANING OF “ELECTION” IN JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

    Watson claims that judicial precedent, including Foster v. Love and Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee,confirms that federal election-day statutes only require ballots to be cast, not received. Watson argues that Foster, in which the Supreme Court found that a state law allowing elections to conclude in October violated federal law, defined Election Day as the final selection of an officer. This means only that their ballots must be submitted by Election Day because, according to Watson, the people’s final selection of an officer happens once all ballots have been submitted to the state. Additionally, Watson argues that the Supreme Court in Republican National Committee determined that the date ballots are cast by voters is fundamental to the nature of an election while the date in which ballots are received by municipal clerks is not. As a result, Watson maintains that allowing ballot receipt after Election Day is permissible. Watson further argues that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Maddox v. Board of State Canvassers, only requires ballot receipt on Election Day when state law requires it. Where there is no state law requiring ballot receipt on Election Day, Watson argues, Maddox does not apply. Watson supports this argument with nineteenth century judicial decisions that address state election laws during the Civil War and show that even in the 1800s, state elections were not confined to specific election practices. Watson highlights that these cases allowed soldiers to vote outside of their home state despite the previously universal practice of voting within one’s home state, meaning that many election practices thought to be universal are not actually required. Therefore, according to Watson, states are at liberty to not require all ballots be received by Election Day.

    RNC argues that Foster requires that ballot receipt by election officials occur on Election Day. According to RNC, Foster highlights that federal statutes define elections as the combined actions of voters and state officials to make a final selection of a particular office. RNC argues that the final selection of an officer is based on the actions of the electorate as a whole, including the actions of both voters and officials, not just when each individual selects a candidate on their ballot. Therefore, RNC contends, Election Day requires both that voters submit their ballots and that state officials receive the ballots. RNC claims that the Montana Supreme Court’s finding in Maddox, that Montana’s post-election ballot receipt deadline was preempted, supports their assertion that ballot receipt by state officials is required on Election Day. RNC highlights that Maddox stated that a ballot has no effect until it is deposited with an election official. Additionally, RNC claims that Watson misinterprets Republican National Committee, highlighting that this case concerned Wisconsin’s primary elections, not federal election-day statutes. Even if this case concerned Election Day statutes, however, RNC claims that ballot receipt deadlines were not challenged in this case.

    Discussion

    ELECTION INTEGRITY AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

    A group of five former election administrators (collectively “Former Election Administrators”), in support of Watson, contend that requiring a strict Election Day receipt deadline in states that previously allowed receipt after Election Day risks eroding public confidence in elections and confusing voters. Former Election Administrators further stress that strict Election Day receipt deadlines could result in rejected ballots. The League of United Latin American Citizens (“LULAC”), in support of Watson, argues that mail-in ballots are often delivered late or misrouted due to delays and errors in the postal service. LULAC explains that these potential delays are concerning for voters who fear that their votes will not be counted due to administrative errors outside of their control. Former Election Administrators emphasize that it would be up to local election officials to determine what to do if mail-in ballots are delayed by the postal service, or if other administrative issues occur, thereby creating even more uncertainty.

    The Center for Election Confidence and other advocacy groups (collectively “CEC”), in support of RNC,argue that allowing ballot receipt after Election Day will weaken confidence in American elections. The Secretaries of State from Louisiana and Wyoming (collectively the “Secretaries of State”), in support of RNC, similarly contend that late-arriving ballots reduce public confidence in elections, a problem that becomes particularly acute when ballots that arrive after Election Day change the initial projected result, leading to polarizing election outcomes. TheSecretaries of State cite polling data which shows that 89% of voters believe every ballot should be received by Election Day, further supporting the contention that allowing ballot receipt after Election Day would sow distrust in the election system.

    FEASIBILITY OF ELECTIONS

    Former Election Administrators warn that affirming the Fifth Circuit’s ruling could create a chaotic dual voting system with one deadline for federal elections and another for state and local elections, leading to an infeasible situation that Congress did not intend. This bifurcated system, Former Election Administrators argue, would not only confuse voters and administrators alike, but could cost roughly $5 billion annually nationwide in administration costs. The District of Columbia and nineteen states (collectively “District of Columbia”), in support of Watson, argue that election logistics already require intense and detailed planning, and that an unintended bifurcated system would only place even more stress on an already massive undertaking.  The Democratic National Committee, in support of Watson, further argues that mail-in voting addresses makes voting easier for voters, not just administrators, by removing the barriers that 42.5% of non-voters cite as reasons they do not vote, including bad weather, disability, lack of transport, and inconvenient polling places. The National Congress of American Indians and other groups advocating for Native American rights (collectively “NCAI”), in support of Watson, cautions that Native Americans disproportionately rely on mail-in voting, and that mail service on reservations is unreliable due to poor infrastructure and remote geography. NCAI argues that affirming this decision would also make it difficult for Native Americans to vote in person because preventing states from extending deadlines could lead to further disenfranchisement of indigenous communities.

    CEC argues that mail-in voting already carries higher risks of fraud than in-person voting, and that extending the ballot receipt deadline compounds these vulnerabilities. Extended deadlines, CEC warns, allow ballots to remain in unregulated hands for longer periods, and could incentivize states to push deadlines further and further back with no principled stopping point. According to Citizens for New Jersey Election Integrity and Project Civica, Inc. (collectively “C4NJEI”), in support of RNC, there are real-world consequences of delays in counting ballots; for example, in New York, a winner of a 2020 Congressional election was not determined until months after Election Day. C4NJEI points out that New Jersey also experienced delays in the tabulation, reporting, and certification of ballots since ballots were accepted past Election Day. TheSecretaries of State add that counting ballots received after Election Day creates increased work for election officials, especially when it leads to litigation. Montana and seven other states (collectively “Montana”), in support of RNC, agree, arguing that a uniform Election Day ballot receipt deadline would dramatically limit litigation and reduce the need for last-minute court interventions. Montana further contends that requiring ballot receipt by Election Day poses no real hardship since states have already expanded voter access by other means.

    Conclusion

    Written by:    John Lauro and Evan Pittman

    Edited by:      Sierra Berry

    Additional Resources