The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reaffirm that “Election Day” means what it says under federal law. Counting ballots received after Election Day not only violates federal law but encourages voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. The Supreme Court should uphold the historic decision by the Fifth Circuit that sensibly concluded that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful.
The October 2024, Fifth Circuit appellate opinion found:
Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
In August, we filed a brief with the Supreme Court, opposing Mississippi’s attempt to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s October 2024 decision (Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee, et al., (No. 24-1260)).
Our brief recounts:
In reversing the district court on the merits, the [Fifth Circuit] panel faithfully followed this Court’s precedent … [T]his Court found that the Election Day statutes preempted a Louisiana law that allowed congressional candidates to be elected in October…. In interpreting the meaning of “day of the election” within the Election Day statutes, this Court found that “[w]hen the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’ of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.” … Accordingly, the “day of the election” “may not be consummated prior to federal election day.”
We initially filed the civil rights lawsuit in February 2024 on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenging the election law. The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and other complainants.
This case is part of our national leadership in voting integrity and voting rights. Our team of voting rights attorneys has stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.
We recently filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief along with the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to reverse the Third Circuit’s decision denying the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) standing to sue for voter information guaranteed under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
In October 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the historic case we filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, arguing to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after the Election Day beyond the date established by federal law (Rep. Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).
Other examples of our election law work include:
Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois recently ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuits against those states may proceed, forcing them to clean their voter rolls.
We announced in May that our work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.