Mississippi mail-in ballot case heads to U.S. Supreme Court: What’s at stake for 2026 elections

The Supreme Court’s announcement that it will hear a challenge to Mississippi’s counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day could result in the upending of mail-in ballot rules in dozens of states and create uncertainty leading up to the 2026 elections.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, asks the justices to determine the fundamental meaning of “Election Day.” At its core is a deceptively simple question: Does Election Day refer to when voters must cast their ballots, or when those ballots must arrive to be counted? The court announced on Nov. 10, 2025, that it would hear the case.

The stakes extend far beyond Mississippi. Nearly half of all states have grace periods similar to Mississippi’s five-day window, allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly afterward. A ruling that requires all ballots to arrive by Election Day itself could force election officials across the country to overhaul their procedures with limited time before the next major election cycle. For voters, particularly those in rural areas where mail service can be slower and less reliable, the decision could determine whether their ballot counts or arrives too late.

The Supreme Court case also arrives at a moment of heightened political tension over voting procedures. Mail-in voting expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained a flashpoint in debates over election security and ballot access. Some argue that grace periods are essential to ensure that voters who mail ballots on time aren’t disenfranchised by postal delays beyond their control. Others contend that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day creates unnecessary uncertainty about results and undermines public confidence in election outcomes. The Supreme Court’s resolution of this question will effectively choose between these competing values, with implications for how millions of Americans cast their votes.

Mail delivery has slowed nationwide, some say in part due to the removal of deposit boxes and sorting equipment under former postmaster Louis DeJoy, a Trump ally and major Republican donor, which critics allege specifically targeted mail-in ballots. In response to the controversy, DeJoy announced that he would suspend “longstanding operational initiatives” to avoid “even the appearance of any impact on election mail.” In August 2025, Trump announced that he planned to sign an executive order prohibiting mail-in ballots altogether.

The legal question

Mississippi currently allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five days afterward. The state argues that Congress set only the date by which voters must make their choice, not the date by which ballots must arrive at election offices. This grace period, similar to ones in place in many other states, is designed to account for mail delivery variability and give elections officials time to count ballots that voters submitted on time but that arrived slightly delayed.

The Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs challenge this interpretation, arguing that “Election Day” means ballots must arrive by that date to be counted. They contend that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day creates uncertainty about election outcomes and extends the vote-counting process in ways that could undermine confidence in results.

The challenge reflects broader political debates over mail-in voting, which expanded significantly during the coronavirus pandemic. President Trump has criticized the use of mail-in ballots since 2020 and particularly since his defeat in that election, falsely blaming the ballots for his loss. Earlier this year, the president announced he would lead a movement to eliminate mail-in ballots, although the president does not have the power to unilaterally end the practice, and some Republicans fear that discouraging the use of mail-in ballots would put their voters at a disadvantage.

Mississippi’s absentee voting framework

Beyond the ballot-counting deadline question, Mississippi maintains one of the nation’s most restrictive frameworks for who can vote by mail. Under Mississippi law, voters can only cast absentee ballots under six specific circumstances: being 65 or older, having a temporary or permanent disability, serving as an elected official required to work on Election Day, being a student or military member living away from their voting precinct, working as a poll worker in a different precinct, or being incarcerated but not yet convicted.

State officials have defended this approach as maintaining election security and preserving in-person voting as the primary method of casting ballots. Supporters of restrictive absentee voting rules argue that in-person voting provides better chain of custody for ballots, reduces opportunities for fraud or coercion, and reinforces voting as a civic duty that merits setting aside time on Election Day.

Critics argue that these restrictions create unnecessary barriers to voting, particularly for working people, those with transportation challenges, and residents of rural areas who may live far from polling places. They note that the vast majority of states have adopted more permissive mail-in voting rules without documented increases in fraud.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 35 states plus Washington, D.C. now allow no-excuse absentee voting, meaning any registered voter can request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason. Eight states conduct elections almost entirely by mail. Among states that maintain excuse requirements, Mississippi’s list is among the more restrictive.

However, the ballot-counting deadline issue affects states across the political spectrum. Many states—including those with broad mail-in voting access—have grace periods similar to Mississippi’s, allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive shortly afterward. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect all of these states, regardless of their other voting policies.

Mississippi mail-in

Mississippi’s current approach to voting access exists within a complex historical context. The state’s 1890 Constitution was explicitly designed to restrict Black political participation through mechanisms including poll taxes and literacy tests. Many of these provisions were struck down during the civil rights era, particularly following the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Whether and how this history connects to current voting policies remains contested. Voting rights advocates argue that restrictive voting rules continue patterns of making ballot access more difficult, particularly for Black voters and low-income residents who may face greater challenges voting in person. State officials and supporters of current policies contend that modern election laws serve legitimate purposes unrelated to historical discrimination, including election security and administrative efficiency.

During the 2020 election, Mississippi temporarily expanded absentee ballot access due to the pandemic, allowing voters to cite COVID-19 concerns as a temporary disability. When that expansion ended, Mississippi returned to its pre-pandemic restrictions. The temporary change demonstrated both that some voters sought expanded mail-in access and that the state could administer such a system, though views differ on what conclusions should be drawn from that experience.

The temporary expansion revealed both demand for mail-in voting and the state’s capacity to administer it. Absentee ballot requests increased substantially, and election officials processed these ballots without major incidents. When the pandemic emergency ended, Mississippi returned to its pre-pandemic restrictions rather than maintaining the expanded access.

Supporters of expanded access point to the 2020 experience as evidence that Mississippi can successfully administer broader mail-in voting without compromising election security. Defenders of current policies argue that the emergency expansion does not prove that permanent changes are necessary or desirable, particularly given that in-person voting remained available throughout the pandemic.

The state’s voter turnout figures provide another lens for examining these questions. Mississippi consistently ranks among the lowest states nationally for voter turnout in both presidential and midterm elections. In 2020, despite the temporary expansion of absentee voting, Mississippi ranked 49th among states in voter turnout as a percentage of voting-eligible population.

The causes of Mississippi’s low turnout and potential solutions remain debated. Some researchers attribute low turnout primarily to restrictive voting rules and argue that expanding ballot access would increase participation. Others point to broader factors including political culture, education levels, poverty, and voter engagement efforts, suggesting that ballot access rules are only one factor among many.

Mississippi’s voting policies have been subject to federal court scrutiny repeatedly over the decades. Beyond challenges to specific discriminatory provisions, the state has faced ongoing litigation over redistricting, voter ID requirements, and other election procedures. This legal history reflects the state’s contested position at the intersection of voting rights and federalism.

The current Supreme Court case over ballot-counting deadlines adds another chapter to this history, though it differs from previous litigation in focusing on a procedural question that affects many states rather than targeting Mississippi-specific restrictions. Nevertheless, Mississippi’s broader context—including its restrictive framework for who can vote by mail—provides important background for understanding how ballot-counting deadlines interact with overall ballot access.

National context

If the Supreme Court rules that ballots must arrive by Election Day to be counted, the decision could force rapid changes in states with grace periods. Election officials would need to update procedures, notify voters of changed deadlines, and potentially address confusion about which ballots can be counted. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the timing could prove challenging for election administrators.

The case also raises practical questions about mail delivery reliability. Postal delivery times vary, and voters in rural areas may face longer delays. Proponents of grace periods argue that strict arrival deadlines could disenfranchise voters who submit ballots with adequate time but experience delivery delays beyond their control. Opponents counter that voters can plan accordingly by mailing ballots earlier or using in-person voting options, and that clear deadlines provide certainty about when vote counting concludes.

The Mississippi case adds to an already significant slate of voting-related cases before the Supreme Court this term. The docket includes a lawsuit over who has standing to challenge Illinois’ mail-in ballot rules and a battle over Louisiana’s congressional district map that could affect remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Together, these cases position the Court to shape significant aspects of election law and voting access, with potential implications for how Americans cast ballots in future elections.

The Court’s decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee will establish important precedents about federal versus state authority over election procedures, the interpretation of federal election law, and the balance between ballot access and election administration concerns.

For Mississippi, the case brings national attention to the state’s voting policies at a time when election procedures remain politically contentious. The state consistently ranks among the lowest nationally in voter turnout, though the causes of low turnout and potential solutions remain debated.

Depending on the Court’s ruling, Mississippi and other states may need to revise their ballot-counting procedures, potentially affecting millions of voters. Election officials, voters, and political observers across the country will be watching closely as the case unfolds, knowing that the decision could reshape how Americans vote in the years ahead.

---

Image: U.S. Supreme Court justices (via Cato Institute)