Conservative Judges Review Mississippi Case That May Limit Mail-In Voting

A hearing took place on Tuesday involving a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, all appointed by former President Donald Trump. The judges reviewed a case connected to a Mississippi election law that permits the counting of mail-in absentee ballots if they arrive within five days after Election Day.

This legal case could have significant ramifications for other states, especially crucial battlegrounds that currently accept late-arriving ballots. If the plaintiffs, who are Republicans, succeed in challenging these mail-in voting provisions, it could tighten election margins across the country in future contests. Legal experts widely consider this case as one of the most likely election-related appeals to reach the U.S. Supreme Court before the approaching election.

Approximately 20 states, including Mississippi, have laws that allow the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, given that they are postmarked by that date. States like Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, California, and New York have similar provisions. Overturning these late-ballot rules would represent a significant shift in policy for them.

The legal challenge was initiated in January by national and state Republicans, who targeted Mississippi’s Secretary of State and other election officials. They are contesting a law enacted in 2020, which allows mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accepted if they arrive within the following five days after the election.

Participating in this lawsuit are the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and two individuals. They aim to repeal the mail-in ballot policy established during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi joined in this legal effort, providing testimony during the hearing.

A district court previously rejected their claims in July, determining that the law regarding absentee ballot receipt deadlines does not violate federal regulations.

During Tuesday’s arguments, the panel of conservative judges scrutinized the previous ruling. The discourse revolved around the interpretation of “Election Day” as a singular event, rather than an extended voting period. The court referenced established precedents, including the case RNC v. DNC, and considered relevant federal statutes like the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

GOP attorney Conor Woodfin articulated the argument that the final deadline for ballot receipt should not vary by state and that Election Day should be universally recognized as the day for acceptance. “The original public meaning of Election Day is the day that ballots are received by election officials,” he said. He pointed out discrepancies in how different states handle ballot acceptance and contended that historical practices should guide the interpretation of election laws.

Representing the Mississippi Secretary of State, Scott Stewart defended the district court’s finding. He stated that the plaintiffs have failed to define what constitutes ballot receipt in the context of early voting. Stewart emphasized the lack of clarity from their side, arguing, “I’ve just never seen a plain text case prevail with that kind of an absence.”

The Democratic National Committee acted as an intervener in the case, challenging the Republican claims. Attorney Donald Verrilli explained the meaning of “election” and insisted that it involves completing the collective choice by voters by the end of Election Day. He argued that this definition has remained consistent since the nation’s founding.

Verrilli further addressed the concept of “collective choice,” asserting that it necessitates all votes contributing to an election outcome must be cast by Election Day, regardless of how they are cast. He noted that the Constitution empowers state officials to dictate the manner of voting, which results in varying policy choices among states.

The oral arguments were timely, as Mississippi had just begun offering both in-person and mail-in absentee ballots for the upcoming general election, which adds a layer of urgency to the proceedings.