The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to curb the ability of states to count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, following a series of pointed oral arguments on Monday. The case centers on the tension between state-level extensions and federal laws that establish a singular, fixed date for national elections.
Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, appearing on “The Evening Edit,” noted that a majority of the justices seemed “skeptical” that ballots trickling in days or weeks late can legally be counted under the current federal framework. Jarrett told host Elizabeth MacDonald that the justices expressed serious concerns regarding delays that “stretch for days or even weeks,” arguing such extensions conflict with the fixed Election Day mandate.
“I would count a majority as skeptical here that these late-arriving ballots can be counted,” Jarrett said. “And I think with very good reasons, which we heard—why should important elections be held hostage to our crummy postal system delays… because that’s contrary to federal law that sets election day on a fixed date.”
READ: Pennsylvania Gov. Shapiro Sidesteps Questions On Sen. John Fetterman Silence
The legal challenge specifically targets laws like those in Mississippi, which currently allow mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after the polls close. The Republican National Committee and the Trump administration have argued that federal law sets a firm deadline, effectively barring states from accepting ballots after that window.
During the proceedings, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised questions about the security risks of extended windows, suggesting that allowing ballots to remain in circulation after the polls close could allow third parties—such as family members or political operatives—to handle them. Gorsuch noted the potential for voters to attempt to “recall” or change ballots in a way that could “swing the election” in its final moments.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the public perception of the process, asking how much the “appearance” of fraud should weigh on the Court’s decision. “If you have to have a deadline… and having a deadline of November 3 rather than November 10 for receipts doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, why wouldn’t it make more sense to take account, in some respect, of that concern?” Kavanaugh asked.
Jarrett echoed these sentiments, stating that “charges of election rigging explode whenever the apparent winner of the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots.” He clarified that the arguments were not about barring early voting entirely, but rather ensuring all votes are submitted by a “hard deadline” on Election Day.
The Court also touched on broader concerns regarding “ballot harvesting” and other voting schemes. Jarrett observed that the justices seem aware that “people have lost faith in the system,” adding that “it needs fixing, and Congress refuses to fix it.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
