Watson v. Republican National Committee

**Opinion:** https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260\_g3cn.pdf ## Case background Three federal election-day statutes set the day for the “election” of Representatives, Senators, and the President on a Tuesday in November. See 3 U. S. C. § 1; 2 U. S. C. §§ 1, 7. Mississippi permits certain residents, such as college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot, Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-713, and it is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. Absentee voters in Mississippi may dispatch their ballots by mail or common carrier, and every absentee ballot must be “postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election.” §§ 23-15-637(1)(a), (3). In 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and various individuals sued the Mississippi secretary of state and several election officials, contending that federal law prevents Mississippi from counting absentee ballots received after election day. On their reading, the election-day statutes use the word “election” to refer to two acts, ballot casting and ballot receipt, so setting the day for the “election” sets the deadline for both. The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar suit, the District Court consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment to Mississippi, and the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Mississippi’s statute is preempted because the federal election-day statutes require ballots to be received by election day. ## Questions Presented (1) Whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day. ## Holding The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in those statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. The defining element of an “election” has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate, and that choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received. A related statute, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, reinforces the point: it repeatedly presupposes that ballot receipt is a matter of state law, and its cross-references to state ballot-receipt deadlines would make little sense if the election-day statutes already set a nationwide one. The reading is also consistent with the Constitution, which requires the day on which Presidential electors give their votes to be the same throughout the United States but says nothing about the day for receipt. Plaintiffs’ contrary arguments from 19th-century historical practice, from Foster v. Love, and from election integrity and voter confidence are unavailing: the practice they identify cannot be tied to the statutory text, Foster is not about ballot receipt and nowhere mentions it, and policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures rather than courts. 120 F. 4th 200, reversed and remanded. ## The Court Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined, and in which Justice Kavanaugh joined as to all but Parts II-C-2 and III. ## What this episode contains This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in *Watson v. Republican National Committee*, written by Justice Barrett. **AI disclosure:** The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.