The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Watson v. RNC, the case that could settle once and for all whether Election Day means what it says. At issue: a Mississippi law that permits mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they trickle in up to five days later. The Republican National Committee sued to stop the practice, and the justices who questioned Mississippi's position appeared far from persuaded that "day" can stretch into almost a week.
Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, cut through the legal fog with a plain observation about the English language. He listed common phrases built on the word "day" and drew the obvious conclusion.
We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the last of which, the second of which is 'day,' Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, birthday and Election Day, and they're all particular days.
Alito then sharpened the point to its logical end.
If we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase 'Election Day,' I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place, or almost everything.
The analysis is as intuitive as it sounds: nobody celebrates Independence Week or Labor Half-Month. A day is a day. If Congress designated a single Election Day, the question is whether states can unilaterally extend the window for ballot receipt well past the close of polls.
The RNC challenged Mississippi's late-ballot law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the RNC in 2024. Mississippi then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, setting the stage for Monday's arguments. Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued in support of the RNC and framed the issue in terms of original meaning.
All agree that elections for federal office have to end on the day of the election specified by Congress, and all agree that you can't have an election unless you receive ballots, and there must be some deadline for ballot receipt.
Clement then took direct aim at Mississippi's position.
Nonetheless, Mississippi insists that ballots can trickle in days or even weeks after Election Day. That position is wrong as a matter of text, precedent, history and common sense.
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart faced questions from the bench, including a pointed inquiry from Chief Justice John Roberts about the logical implications of the state's reading.
If 'day' includes a period after a particular day of the election, does it include a particular day before the day of the election? Or does your logic require a different consideration?
Roberts, also a George W. Bush appointee, and Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, raised the concern that a strict reading of "Election Day" could theoretically call early voting into question as well. That line of questioning will be worth watching as the Court drafts its opinion, but it does not change the core problem: Congress set one day, and states have been quietly adding extra days on the back end for ballot receipt.
The stakes extend far beyond Mississippi. At least 14 states and Washington, D.C., currently count ballots received after Election Day if postmarked on time, according to Fox News. A ruling that upholds the 5th Circuit could invalidate those policies and require all ballots to be in election officials' hands by the close of polls. Fox News reported that such a decision is expected to affect the 2026 midterms.
Four states have already moved in the right direction without waiting for the Court. Since the 2024 midterm elections, Kansas, Ohio, Utah, and North Dakota have enacted requirements that ballots be received by Election Day. Military and overseas ballots, governed by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, would likely remain unaffected.
The case arrives as President Donald Trump has made election security a top focus. The RNC and several election integrity groups argued that the Supreme Court should ban late-arriving ballots, with the exception of military ballots, because they argued such practices sow distrust in elections.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, issued a statement to Fox News Digital after the arguments.
Today's oral arguments in Watson v. RNC clearly show where the Supreme Court should come down: state laws that count ballots received after Election Day violate federal law, expose elections to delays, invite fraud, and fuel public doubt in the democratic process.
A decision in Watson v. RNC is expected by the summer. The Court has not publicly confirmed how broadly its ruling will reach, and authorities have not said whether the opinion will address the early-voting question raised by Roberts and Kagan. The practical effect could reshape mail-ballot deadlines in more than a dozen states ahead of November.
The principle at the center of this case is not complicated. Congress picked a day. It called it Election Day. If that word still means something, the answer writes itself.
