Big League Politics, 11/10/40 PM
At issue is whether states such as Mississippi and Illinois can continue counting mail ballots that arrive in the days following Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day. Roughly 18 states and the District of Columbia currently allow this practice.
The Mississippi case, which the Court accepted Monday, questions whether federal law — which sets a single, nationwide Election Day for choosing members of Congress and the presidency — preempts state laws that effectively extend that period by several days.
Mississippi’s attorney general has argued that such extensions undermine the “uniform Election Day” standard and threaten to sow confusion and doubt about late-arriving ballots.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the challenge marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over election integrity, ballot security, and the future of mail voting in America. A ruling is expected by mid-2026, in time to influence procedures before the next midterm elections.
The Court’s order follows similar litigation from Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), who filed suit over Illinois’ rule permitting ballots to be received and counted up to two weeks after Election Day. While the justices in that case are first weighing whether the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue, the Mississippi challenge is expected to bring the broader constitutional question directly to the forefront.
Conservative activists and America First lawmakers have hailed the Supreme Court’s move as a long-awaited opportunity to close what they call a dangerous loophole in the electoral process.
“Elections should end when the polls close, not days later while new ballots appear,” one grassroots organizer told Big League Politics. “If we’re serious about faith in our democracy, we have to protect the principle of one person, one vote, one day.”
Democrats and left-leaning voting groups counter that rejecting late-arriving ballots could disenfranchise voters who mailed their ballots on time but experienced postal delays. They maintain that the postmark standard ensures fairness for all eligible voters.
Still, election-integrity advocates argue that extending deadlines undermines public confidence and creates unnecessary opportunities for mistakes — or worse.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could reshape how states handle mailed ballots nationwide and set a clear boundary for what counts as Election Day in federal contests.
For now, the justices’ acceptance of the case signals that the debate over mail-in ballot deadlines — a flashpoint since 2020 — is far from over.
Big League Politics will continue monitoring the case and its implications for upcoming elections.
Big League Politics will continue monitoring the case and its implications for upcoming elections.