Supreme Court leaves California's mail-in ballots intact

The Republican National Committee – the plaintiffs in the case – argued that back in the 19th century, ballots were counted on Election Day and no later. That was when many state statutes across the country were passed regulating election integrity, according to the court's majority opinion.

However, 19th-century voting practices were not set in stone by federal law, Barrett wrote.

“[The Republican National Committee] emphasize that in the mid-to-late 19th century, ballot receipt occurred on election day, and that in the Civil War-era, states that authorized absentee voting imposed strict election-day deadlines for ballot receipt,” Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs’ view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots.”

Barrett continued, “At bottom, plaintiffs’ theory is that because 19th-century election-day statutes govern here, so too do 19th-century voting practices."

But the justice added that statues don't trap in amber, or preserve for perpetuity, "every contemporary practice on the same subject matter.”

According to the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t actually affect elections and leaves protections intact for voters mailing in ballots from overseas.

“Watson doesn’t change any of that,” J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Virginia-based Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Center Square. “All those things are still in place.”

The federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which Congress passed in 2009, does not establish Election Day as the firm deadline for receiving mail-in ballots for military and overseas voters. In 2011, Adams said, Congress changed the law to establish a 45-day deadline for states to mail absentee ballots to voters. Courts also had the ability to extend certain deadlines under that law, Adams said.

The MOVE Act is silent on the deadline to receive ballots, Adams said.

Ally Triolo, the election integrity communications director for the Republican National Committee, said the committee is still fighting to ensure that elections are conducted responsibly.

“No matter who they’re voting for, all Americans deserve an election process that is safe, secure and one that they can trust,” Triolo told The Center Square. “The decision on Watson vs. RNC was very close. We put up a great argument, and clearly, mail-in ballot security is being talked about because people know there are issues.”

Triolo added that the RNC filed more than 160 lawsuits in 38 states regarding election integrity.

“Californians should be irate over the way our elections are run,” Triolo said. “You have states like Florida that are the gold standard when it comes to election security and processing election results. When people go to bed on election night, they know who won the election, Republican or Democrat, and they wake up the next morning with full confidence in the system.”

Michael Watson, the Mississippi secretary of state and defendant in the case, did not respond directly to The Center Square on Thursday, but a representative from his office sent a short comment to The Center Square Thursday afternoon.

“The Watson vs. RNC ruling did not affect the process for UOCAVA [Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act] voters,” Alana Magliolo, communications coordinator for the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office's publications division, wrote via email.

Voter rights organizations like Veterans for All Voters, the League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Voter Foundation did not respond to The Center Square on Thursday. The Secure Democracy Foundation declined an interview with The Center Square.