The Supreme Court has ruled that federal law does not require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day, in a decision that has sparked dissent among some justices. The lawsuit, filed by the Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, challenged the state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be received up to five days after the election. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, argued that the federal election-day statute does not specify a deadline for ballot receipt.
However, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that federal law designates a specific date as "election day" and requires that elections for federal office be held on that date. Alito contends that allowing ballots to be received after Election Day would effectively postpone the date on which the electorate's choice is made, violating federal law. He also argues that the definition of "election" in "election day" refers to the expression of the electorate's choice, which must occur on a single day.
Alito's dissenting opinion criticizes the majority's interpretation of the election-day statutes, arguing that it would allow the electorate's choice to be made piecemeal over an extended period. He notes that the use of mail-in voting does not change the fact that under federal law, the electorate's collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on Election Day. Alito also disputes the majority's claim that the election-day statutes only require individual voters to cast their ballots on or before Election Day.
The majority opinion, on the other hand, argues that the election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt and that the court cannot add to the words chosen by Congress. Justice Coney Barrett notes that due dates for absentee ballots have shifted over time and that some states have allowed ballots to be received after Election Day in certain situations. However, Alito responds that these practices are not relevant to the original meaning of the election-day statutes and that the legislative intent behind these statutes is clear.
Alito's dissenting opinion concludes that the majority's decision is inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent. He warns that the decision threatens to produce "lamentable consequences" and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity. Alito argues that the decision opens up a host of troubling election-law questions and fails to resolve them, creating a serious risk of undermining public confidence in the electoral system.
The ruling has significant implications for the conduct of federal elections and the interpretation of federal election law. The Supreme Court's decision will likely be closely watched by election officials, lawmakers, and the public, as it has the potential to shape the future of election administration in the United States. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito highlights the deep divisions within the court on this issue and underscores the ongoing debate over the meaning and application of federal election law.
