Supreme Court Allows States To Count Mail-In Ballots Received After Election Day
Trump Calls Ruling A “Tremendous Loss” As Conservatives Warn Decision Could Further Erode Election Confidence
by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Worthy News) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that states may count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, so long as they were sent on or before Election Day, handing a major defeat to the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s administration in a closely watched election-law battle.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that federal Election Day statutes do not require ballots to be physically received by election officials by the close of Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” the Court wrote.
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centered on Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received up to five days later. The RNC argued that such laws violate federal statutes establishing a single national Election Day for federal elections.
Barrett’s majority opinion rejected that argument, finding that federal law sets the deadline for voters to make their choice, but does not impose a national receipt deadline on states.
The ruling preserves similar ballot-counting practices in more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia, where mail-in ballots may be counted after Election Day if they are properly postmarked or otherwise verified as cast on time.
Justice Samuel Alito filed a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined most of the dissent.
Alito warned that the majority’s reasoning undermines the meaning of Election Day itself.
“Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days,” Alito wrote, arguing that under Mississippi’s system, “the collection of ballots continues for five more days,” effectively extending the election beyond the date set by Congress.
The dissent also warned that the ruling could deepen public mistrust at a time when confidence in American elections is already fragile.
“Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences,” Alito wrote. “The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”
President Trump blasted the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “tremendous loss” and renewing his demand for Congress to pass legislation requiring voter photo ID, proof of citizenship, and sharp limits on mail-in voting.
“There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump wrote. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!”
Trump urged Senate Republicans to move forward with what he called the SAVE America Act, a measure that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to cast a ballot. The legislation would also restrict mail-in voting to limited circumstances, including illness, disability, military deployment, and travel.
The ruling comes as Republicans have increasingly pushed for tighter election safeguards, warning that delayed ballot-counting damages transparency and feeds suspicion among voters. Democrats and voting-access advocates argue that post-Election Day receipt windows protect lawful voters from postal delays, particularly seniors, rural residents, overseas voters, and those with disabilities.
Still, critics say the Court’s decision leaves unresolved a fundamental question: whether Americans can maintain trust in elections when results continue to shift days or even weeks after Election Day.
Worthy News reports from a biblical worldview with a commitment to accuracy, transparency, and editorial independence. Learn more about About Worthy News, our Editorial Standards, AI Use Policy, Ownership of Worthy News, News Tips and Corrections, and Worthy News Staff.
💡 Did you know? One of the best ways you can support Worthy News is by simply leaving a comment and sharing this article.
📢 Social media algorithms push content further when there’s more engagement — so every 👍 like, 💬 comment, and 🔄 share helps more people discover the truth. 🙌
Latest Worthy News
If you are interested in articles produced by Worthy News, please check out our FREE sydication service available to churches or online Christian ministries. To find out more, visit Worthy Plugins.
