Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Mail-In Ballot Counting Rules
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will review Watson v. republican National Committee, a case with potentially far-reaching implications for how states conduct elections. At its core, the case questions whether states can count mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, a practice currently permitted in many jurisdictions.
This challenge stems from a rather obscure 1872 law. Specifically, the Republican National Committee (RNC) argues that the law dictating federal elections occur on “the Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November” implicitly demands all ballots be received by that date. For over 150 years, this interpretation has largely gone unnoticed, prompting skepticism about the timing and motivations behind the current legal push.
The Core of the Dispute
The RNC initiated the lawsuit against Mississippi, a state that allows ballots postmarked before Election Day to be counted even if they arrive shortly afterward. However, Mississippi isn’t alone; several states follow similar practices, designed to ensure all legitimate votes are tallied.
You might be wondering why this is suddenly a major legal battle. Recent election trends show Democrats are more likely to utilize mail-in voting than Republicans. Consequently, former President Trump previously attempted to restrict mail voting, raising concerns about partisan efforts to suppress voter turnout.
Questionable Legal Grounding
Analyzing the legal arguments presented, it’s arduous to find strong support for the RNC’s position.A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion supporting the RNC’s claim concludes that the election must be “consummated” on election Day with the receipt of the last ballot. Though, this conclusion lacks clear legal precedent or statutory backing.
It’s crucial to understand where the Fifth Circuit stands. Generally, it leans further to the right than the Supreme Court itself, mirroring the dynamic between the House Freedom Caucus and more moderate Senate Republicans. Frequently enough, the Fifth Circuit favors outcomes aligned with the Republican Party, but the Supreme Court frequently overturns its decisions when reasoning is demonstrably weak.
What This Means for You and Future Elections
While the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is concerning, a complete overhaul of current mail-in ballot practices seems unlikely. The RNC’s legal theory appears tenuous, and it’s improbable the justices will fully embrace it.
Here’s a breakdown of potential outcomes:
* Unlikely scenario: The Court sides with the RNC, potentially invalidating ballots received after Election Day in states currently permitting it. This would represent a significant shift and raise concerns about election rigging.
* Most Probable Scenario: The Court rejects the RNC’s argument, upholding existing state laws. This outcome aligns with the Court’s history of overturning poorly reasoned Fifth Circuit decisions.
* possible Outcome: The Court issues a narrow ruling, perhaps offering guidance on state election laws without a sweeping decision.
Ultimately, the Watson case highlights the ongoing political battles surrounding voting access. It’s a reminder that your right to vote, and how that vote is counted, is constantly subject to legal and political challenges.
Resources for Further Information:
* SCOTUSblog Case file: Watson v. Republican National Committee
* vox: Trump’s Attempts to Restrict Mail Voting
* Vox: Republican Legal Strategy on Mail Ballots
* [Vox: Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Decisions](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/27/23
