Supreme Court to Hear Major Case on Mail-In Ballot Deadlines as DOJ Shifts Stance
The upcoming Supreme Court case, RNC v. Wetzel, has the potential to reshape mail-in ballot processes across the nation. This case comes from Mississippi, where the Republican National Committee challenges state laws that permit absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to count even if received up to five days later. The plaintiffs argue that this practice contravenes federal election law, which establishes a uniform Election Day.
Oral arguments are scheduled for this spring, with a ruling possible by summer. The implications of this case could ripple beyond Mississippi, affecting at least 16 other states and Washington, D.C., which have similar grace periods in place for mail-in ballots.
With COVID-19 prompting many states to expand absentee voting, RNC v. Wetzel embodies the ongoing legal struggle regarding voting procedures. After assuming office, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s comments indicate a potential shift towards stricter rules concerning mail-in ballots. She tweeted, “Election Day means Election DAY,” clearly announcing her support for a firm deadline.
Background and Legal Framing
At the heart of this litigation is whether federal law allows states to accept absentee ballots after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on time. The RNC and other supporters argue that counting these late ballots erodes election integrity and contradicts congressional intent. The law in question, 2 U.S.C. § 7, mandates a uniform date for congressional elections, which they interpret as a requirement that all ballots must be received by the time polls close on Election Day.
Previously, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, under Judge Andrew S. Oldham, determined that Mississippi’s grace period violates this federal statute. Oldham noted that allowing ballots to be accepted after Election Day inadvertently postpones the election itself, which he deemed illegal under current law.
Conversely, proponents of Mississippi’s law argue that counting ballots after Election Day accounts for postal delays, especially for voters with disabilities or those serving overseas. Organizations like the Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans have lobbied in favor of maintaining the grace period, emphasizing the need for equitable access to the voting process.
Implications for Voters
Data from the 2020 election suggest that over 104,000 ballots were discarded due to late arrivals. States with existing grace periods saw significantly lower rejection rates for mail ballots. For instance, Massachusetts benefited from a three-day grace window, leading to a more than 60% drop in rejections compared to the previous election cycle.
If the Supreme Court rules against the grace period in Mississippi, it would likely influence other states to follow suit. Up to 17 jurisdictions could see immediate changes, affecting millions who rely on absentee voting. This could particularly hamper the voting experience for military and overseas voters who depend on timely mail delivery.
From a Republican perspective, stringent deadlines foster greater public trust in election outcomes. RNC Chair Joe Gruters asserted, “Allowing states to count large numbers of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day undermines trust.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton amplified this sentiment, claiming that late ballot counting not only contradicts federal law but also creates an environment ripe for fraud.
Opposition and Criticism
On the flip side, Democrats and many civil rights advocates characterize this legal battle as an attempt to restrict voting access. Barbara Smith Warner from the National Vote at Home Institute criticized the 5th Circuit’s ruling, arguing that the notion of disregarding ballots postmarked by Election Day is “ridiculous.” Voting rights proponents contend that voters should not face penalties for mailing delays beyond their control when they adhere to the rules of the voting process.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) reinforced its belief in the security of mail voting. DNC Chair Ken Martin remarked, “Voting by mail and voting early are safe, secure, and empower more eligible voters to participate in our elections.” This stance underscores the DNC’s commitment to facilitating broader voter participation.
Political and Legal Ramifications
The outcome of RNC v. Wetzel could redefine legal standards for federal elections. If the Court upholds the 5th Circuit’s interpretation, states might feel inclined to tighten mail-in voting regulations, reinforcing Election Day as an immovable deadline. Such a shift could diminish participation in crucial battleground states and significantly alter election strategies for both major parties.
Conversely, if the justices support Mississippi’s view, it would uphold the practices in states like North Carolina and California, which are known for more lenient mail-in voting rules. These states have already taken steps to accommodate voters facing postal delays, ensuring their ballots are counted.
This case holds great significance as it underscores the evolving federal role in overseeing elections. With Harmeet Dhillon now steering the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, there appears to be a stronger federal endorsement for Republican-led legal initiatives that seek to establish tighter voting regulations. Dhillon’s impactful assertion, “Election Day means Election DAY!” has resonated powerfully with those advocating for firm voting deadlines.
Next Steps
A Supreme Court decision is anticipated by late June or early July 2024, providing time to influence election procedures for the upcoming November elections. Both sides are busy preparing for oral arguments, solidifying legal briefs and rallying support for their respective positions.
Legal experts express divided opinions on possible rulings. Some predict a narrow ruling that could limit the decision to Mississippi, while others foresee broader implications that might abolish grace periods in all states. One certainty remains: the case will challenge the balance between facilitating voter access and maintaining the demand for timely election results.
With increasing scrutiny and pivotal stakes for both political parties, RNC v. Wetzel stands as a significant inflection point in the ongoing discourse surrounding American voting practices.
"*" indicates required fields
