Supreme Court Upholds Mail-In Ballot Grace Periods Supreme Court Upholds Mail-In Ballot Grace Periods

Mail-in ballot envelopes with BREAKING Politics badge overlay, Supreme Court ruling headline

BREAKING — Published June 30, 2026 · By Roe Baynes · 3 Min Read

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later, rejecting a Republican-led challenge just months ahead of the 2026 midterms. The case, Watson v. RNC, preserves similar grace-period laws in 18 states and territories.

The Vote

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, with Kavanaugh also dissenting.

The Majority Opinion

Barrett’s reasoning turned on what federal election-day statutes actually require: that voting be complete by Election Day, not that ballots arrive by then. “The election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt,” she wrote, “so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.” Absent a federal law addressing receipt timing, the Court found nothing stopping a state from setting its own grace period.

The Dissent

Alito warned the ruling “spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.” His dissent argued the majority’s reading invites inconsistency across states at the exact moment national election rules should be getting clearer, not murkier.

Who Actually Controls This — And Why That Matters

It’s a common claim that voting rules are purely a state matter under the Constitution. That’s not quite right, and the distinction matters here. The Constitution’s Elections Clause gives states authority to set the “times, places and manner” of federal elections — but it also gives Congress explicit power to override those state rules whenever it chooses. States are filling a gap, not exercising an exclusive power. This case existed in the first place because the RNC argued federal election-day law already set a receipt deadline; the Court disagreed, finding Congress simply hasn’t addressed it. That’s precisely the gap Republicans’ SAVE America Act is designed to close — using federal authority the Constitution already grants Congress, not creating new power from scratch.

When Grace Periods Change Outcomes

This isn’t theoretical. Baynes World’s own coverage of this month’s LA mayoral primary is a concrete example. Spencer Pratt led Nithya Raman by six points on election night. Six days of mail ballot counting later, Raman had overtaken him by roughly 21,800 votes and advanced to the general election instead. Nationally, similar dynamics are common: a Votebeat analysis found more than 745,000 absentee ballots arrived after Election Day in 2024 across the jurisdictions with grace periods — ballots that, under Monday’s ruling, continue to count.

Trump and GOP Reaction

President Trump called the ruling a “tremendous loss” on social media and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said the votes aren’t currently there to pass it — the bill failed 48-50 in the Senate earlier this month, with four Republicans crossing over, though a narrower version from Sen. Mike Lee remains pending.

What Comes Next

The ruling leaves grace-period laws intact in 18 states and territories heading into the midterms. Whether that changes runs through Congress, not the Court — and as Baynes World has covered before, the Senate hasn’t yet shown it has the votes to act.

Baynes World follows a public Impartiality Pledge on all political coverage.