The Impact of a Nationwide Ballot Return Deadline
By Justin Riemer, President, USGI
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case that will determine whether federal law requires the return of mail ballots by Election Day. We covered the legal arguments in Watson in an earlier Grant Report, and now want to briefly unpack the policy ramifications if the Supreme Court rules in the RNC’s favor.
Only fourteen states permit a default post-Election Day ballot return, although several among those are universal or heavily vote-by-mail including Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and California. Others are high-population states—including Texas, Illinois, and New York—but have significantly lower mail voting rates. In theory, a large number of voters could be impacted.
However, in these states only a small percentage of voters overall take advantage of grace periods. A Votebeat survey found that late arriving mail ballots represented anywhere between .01 to 3.1% of the 2024 General Election total turnout in states that provided data. Overall, the number of ballots received after Election Day in the 2024 General Election appears to be between 725,000 and 750,000. It’s unclear whether that includes military and overseas (“UOCAVA”) or late arriving ballots that wouldn’t have met even the extended deadline.
Ultimately, this ruling should impact only a tiny fraction of the overall electorate, and only a small percentage of mail voters. And impact would undoubtedly be mitigated by voters simply adapting to the deadline by mailing their ballot back earlier, returning it in-person, or simply voting in-person. Making sure voters know of the change certainly puts the onus on state and local election officials, who may need to act quickly to educate voters assuming the ruling affects this year’s General Election. But if voters in heavy or all vote-by-mail states like Arizona or Colorado can successfully navigate an Election Day deadline, there is every reason to believe those in Washington or Oregon can too.
Some have raised concerns about the potential impact on UOCAVA voters, but there is good reason to think they are overstated. In addition to existing federal protections, there appears to be a consensus that state carve-outs specifically allowing UOCAVA voters to return ballots after Election Day would survive a ruling in RNC’s favor. However, states with a more blanket post-election day deadline may need to enact UOCAVA specific legislation.
An RNC win would also head off a lot of potential controversy and litigation regarding whether ballots were mailed by Election Day. States use a postmark date to determine whether a ballot was timely returned, and postmarks are becoming increasingly unreliable given Postal Service mail processing changes. Although USPS insists it has not modified postmarking, “adjustments . . . to . . . transportation operations . . . will result in some mailpieces not arriving at . . . originating processing facilities on the same day they are mailed.” Since mail is postmarked at processing facilities, these changes will almost certainly result in unreliable postmarking that officials use to determine whether a ballot met the mailing deadline. As USPS consolidates processing facilities, this problem is only going to grow. Finally, state laws allowing the counting of ballots returned with illegible or even missing postmarks also instigate disputes, something that could now become moot.
And for all the hoopla, other issues impact mail voters far more than return deadlines. Data from the Election Assistance Commission’s EAVS report indicate that only 17.8% of rejected mail ballots were rejected for not meeting deadlines, the third most common disqualifier. States can do far more to reduce the number of rejected ballots by improving cure processes and adopting more objective (and effective) verification procedures than signature matching.
Finally, although some may bemoan that the courts may determine such a significant election policy, it would be one that is broadly popular. A recent poll by Honest Elections Project found that 83% of Americans support an election day deadline, and a broad majority agrees that post-election delivery deadlines endanger the public’s trust in elections. Although proponents of ballot return grace periods may think such skepticism is misplaced, no amount of education will change overall sentiment on a policy that most Americans feel is just intuitively wrong. Given the proven link between decreased voter confidence and participation it’s quite possible that improved public confidence in American elections will more than offset any negative impacts from the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Arizona
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office received the names of 207 possible non-citizen registered voters to investigate their eligibility. Out of the 207, 60 have previously voted.
California
Sheriff Chad Bianco commenced an audit of 650,000 ballots from the 2025 election, where voters narrowly decided to authorize the redrawing of California’s congressional districts maps. Bianco initiated his investigation after a local citizens group claimed that the election was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes. State Attorney General Rob Bonta and the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed lawsuits challenging his legal authority to gather the materials and Bianco soon after announced he was pausing his probe.
Maryland
The State Administrator of Elections is testing new digital voting machines slated to be introduced in 2018. Hand-marked paper ballots will still be available to voters.
Michigan
A second defendant has been sentenced in connection with a 2022 Michigan election fraud scheme involving forged petition signatures for several gubernatorial campaigns.
Mississippi
Legislators have passed a bill that will require County Registrars to utilize a federal system to determine whether an individual is a citizen when they register to vote. If an individual is not confirmed as a citizen under their initial research, the individual will be required to provide documentary proof of citizenship upon voting.
Nevada
In a poll conducted by RightCount Nevada, 80% of respondents answered that the federal government should not have control over elections. The poll also found that 51% of respondents expressed support for requiring mail in ballots to be received by the closing of polls.
North Carolina
Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger has conceded his primary election race after a second recount placed him 23 votes behind his opponent.
Oregon
Secretary of State Read has weighed in on Watson v. RNC, arguing in favor of a grace period for mail ballots cast and received after election day. Oregon conducts all-mail elections and has allowed a seven-day grace period to receive ballots since 2022.
Pennsylvania
The Berks County Commissioners have delayed voting on whether to purchase high-speed scanners to tabulate mail ballots until after Congress determines the fate of the SAVE Act.
Chester County Election Director Karen Barsoum has announced that she will leave her post after the state’s primary election this June. This announcement comes after the poll book error in the 2025 election and misprinted names on mail-in ballot applications.
Utah
Utah’s redistricting law will not be on the ballot in the upcoming election after a successful removal campaign resulted in organizers failing to secure the required number of petition signatures.
Virginia
Governor Spanberger has signed an executive order requiring that the state rejoin the Electronic Registration Information Center compact. The order will also prevent state election officials from removing ineligible voters from the state voter rolls within 90 days of an election.
Wisconsin
A Racine County jury convicted a man of two misdemeanor election fraud charges and one felony count of identity theft after he requested absentee ballots in the names of two elected officials. He carried out the scheme to demonstrate vulnerabilities in the state election system.
Arizona
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, No. CV-22-00509 (D. Ariz.)
On March 26, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) joined the Center for Election Confidence and the Honest Elections Project in an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the RNC’s petition for certiorari. The brief argues that the Ninth Circuit erred by determining that the National Voter Registration Act preempts Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to vote-by-mail and limiting the removal of noncitizens and other ineligible individuals from voter rolls.
California
Cervantes v. Bianco, No. S295866 (Cal.)
On March 25, a group of voters filed suit asking the state Supreme Court to order that Sheriff Bianco return the more than 650,000 ballots seized as part of an investigation into potential voter fraud in the 2025 election.
Delaware
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Albence, No. 1:26-cv-00343 (D. Del.)
On March 27, the RNC filed a lawsuit against state Election Commissioner Albence asking the court to order Albence to produce records related to the state’s voter roll maintenance.
District of Columbia
DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01114 (D.D.C.)
On April 1, Democratic Party organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, issued on March 31.
Florida
Fla. State Conf. of Branches and Youth Units of the NAACP v. Byrd, No. 4:26-cv-00147 (N.D. Fla.)
On April 1, Governor DeSantis signed legislation into law requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, prompting an immediate federal lawsuit the same day from activist organizations.
Georgia
Fulton Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs vs. Fulton Cty. Republican Party, No. 25CV008083 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cnty.)
On March 20, the state Court of Appeals overturned a trial court’s order that required the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to seat two Republican nominees on the county election board.
A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Raffensperger, No. 1:24-cv-03412 (N.D. Ga.)
On March 31, a federal court dismissed a lawsuit that had challenged provisions of Senate Bill 189 relating to eligibility challenges and voters lacking a permanent address. The suit was dismissed for lack of standing.
Idaho
United States v. McGrane, No. 1:26-cv-00197 (D. Idaho)
On April 1, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Idaho for failing to provide requested voter registration records.
Michigan
United States v. Benson, No. 1:25-cv-1148 (W.D. Mich.)
On March 24, the DOJ asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court dismissal of its lawsuit seeking access to Michigan’s unredacted voter file. On March 30, RITE joined Center for Election Confidence and Honest Elections Project to file an amicus brief in support of the United States.
Mahmood v. City of Hamtramck, No. 378814 (Mich. Ct. App.)
On March 27, a state appellate court ruled that the 37 ballots in the Hamtramck Mayoral election that were previously excluded due to possible tampering should be counted. These ballots may change the outcome of the race. The incumbent mayor announced his intention to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
Mississippi
Watson v. Republican Nat’l Comm., No. 1:24-cv-00025 (S.D. Miss.)
On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a major case challenging Mississippi’s law allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received up to five days later. A link to the oral argument can be found here. RITE recently filed an amicus in this case along with Center for Election Confidence and Honest Elections Project.
Missouri
Kramer v. Hoskins, 2:25-cv-04257-MDH (W.D. Mo.)
On March 8, a federal court ordered the state to process a private citizen’s election complaint through the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) administrative framework, rejecting efforts by state officials to bypass those procedures.
Luther v. Hoskins, No. SC101412 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On March 24, the state Supreme Court ruled that the General Assembly can redraw the state’s congressional district map more than once following the U.S. Census.
Maggard v. Missouri, No. 25AC-CC09120 (Mo Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On March 27, a state court ruled that the submission of petition signatures to repeal the state’s recent redistricting legislation did not suspend implementation of the new map.
League of Women Voters of Missouri v. Missouri, No. 22AC-CC04333 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On March 24, the state Supreme Court struck down portions of H.B. 1878 on grounds that it violated Missouri’s free speech protections. The law placed restrictions on voter registration drives.
Missouri State Conf. of the NAACP v. Missouri, No. SC100965 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On March 24, the state Supreme Court held that the NAACP and LWVM lacked standing to challenge a voter ID law enacted by the state legislature. Additionally, the court held that even if the parties had standing, the parties failed to show that the law was unconstitutional.
New Jersey
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Bergen Cty. Bd. Of Elections, No. BER-L002599-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cnty.)
On March 19, a state court entered an order dismissing the RNC’s suit against the Bergen County Board of Elections for failing to answer an Open Public Records Act request regarding the party affiliation of poll workers in the 2025 election. The parties earlier stipulated to dismiss the case on March 17. Bergen County has since provided the requested information to the RNC.
North Carolina
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. Circosta, 1:18CV1034 (M.D.N.C)
On March 26, a federal court ruled that North Carolina’s voter ID law was constitutional.
Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, 1:23-CV-878 (M.D.N.C.)
On March 26, a federal court upheld the state’s same day voter registration safeguards.
Texas
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Nelson, 1:26-CV-00729 (W.D. Tex.)
On March 26, a group of citizen activists sued Secretary of State Jane Nelson over the state’s use of the federal government’s SAVE tools. The complaint alleges that the tool has previously improperly flagged citizens born outside of the United States as non-citizens.
Virginia
Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights v. Beals, Case No: 1:24-cv-01778 (E.D.V.A)
On March 25, the RNC filed a motion to intervene in litigation defending Virginia’s efforts to remove noncitizens from voter rolls.
Wisconsin
Bothfeld v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 25-CV-2432 (Wisc. Cir. Ct., Dane Cnty.)
On March 31, a three-judge panel dismissed a Democrat-backed lawsuit seeking to redraw the state’s congressional maps before the 2026 election, holding that it lacked authority to invalidate the current districts and that such action rests with the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
President Trump has issued a sweeping executive order aimed at tightening mail-in voting rules nationwide, including directing federal agencies to help create a national database of eligible voters and limiting ballot distribution to those on approved lists, among other measures.
Prominent Republican and Democratic election lawyers have launched the Bipartisan Election Project, pointing to what they describe as “unprecedented stress” on the electoral system.
The UC San Diego Center for Transparent and Trusted Elections has launched the Election Trust Research Podcast, a new initiative aimed at bringing together election administrators, academics, and policy experts to discuss challenges facing U.S. elections.
State legislatures are advancing a broad and active slate of election-related legislation ahead of the 2026 midterms, with more than 1,500 bills introduced nationwide and dozens already enacted.
Betsy McCaughey argues that Election Day should be understood as a firm national deadline for both casting and receiving ballots.
David Nevins breaks down the SAVE America Act in this analysis.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resume to info@grantdemocracy.org.