One of the lingering problems that continue to trouble the body politic in the aftermath of COVID-19 is the ongoing abuse of mail-in voting. Absentee ballots have long been available to a limited number of voters. However, during the pandemic, many states used public safety as a pretext to dramatically expand eligibility for mail-in voting and to extend the deadlines for receiving these ballots.
Now, at least 30 states continue to count such votes long after Election Day has passed. This has inevitably raised concerns about election integrity. Consequently, it was only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court would be asked to decide if post-election vote counting violates federal law. This is why the Court quietly added *Watson v. Republican National Committee* to its docket last week.
### The Mississippi Case
In 2020, Mississippi passed “emergency” legislation requiring election officials to accept absentee ballots “postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election.” Long after the pandemic ended, Mississippi inexplicably made that post-election deadline permanent.
Thus, in 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Mississippi Republican Party went to federal court to challenge the statute. Predictably, the district court ruled against them. However, they won in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, after which Mississippi appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
### Political Reactions and Media Spin
Unsurprisingly, Democrats and their allies in the corporate media are weaving elaborate conspiracy theories around this case. They insist that *Watson v. Republican National Committee* is part of a sinister plot orchestrated by former President Trump, the Department of Justice, and the Supreme Court to disenfranchise millions of Americans.
The theory suggests that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the RNC, it will reduce voter participation, which will somehow favor Republicans. DNC Chair Ken Martin framed the case as a Trojan horse aimed at undermining voting rights in general.
Here is the statement Martin released:
> “Republicans don’t want to see Americans exercising their sacred right to vote. They want to restrict, limit, and infringe on the rights of voters because they know that when more eligible citizens vote, Republicans lose. For years, the RNC has set its sights on disenfranchising voters who exercise their right to vote by mail. Voting by mail and voting early are safe, secure, and empower more eligible voters to participate in our elections. The DNC will fight like hell in this case for the rights of Mississippians and every other citizen to make sure their voices are heard and their votes are counted.”
### The Legal Issue
This rhetoric, however, misses the mark. *Watson v. Republican National Committee* turns on one central question: whether federal election-day statutes preempt state laws that accept ballots received after “the day for the election.”
Congress established the election day clearly back in March 1875 as follows:
> “The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election.”
For the next 150 years, most states complied with this congressional mandate by stopping ballot acceptance on Election Day.
The RNC argues in its Supreme Court brief that states accepting post-election ballots risk “the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.”
### Examples from California
California’s notoriously prolonged vote counting process illustrates this concern perfectly. In 2024, several congressional districts continued counting mail-in ballots for weeks before declaring winners.
– In **CA-45**, Republican incumbent Michelle Steel led Democrat challenger Derek Tran by about 11,000 votes on Election Day. After 22 more days of counting, the Democrat won by a narrow margin of 653 votes.
– In **CA-13**, Republican John Duarte was ahead by approximately 3,100 votes on November 6th. After over three weeks of counting, Democrat Adam Gray emerged victorious by just 187 votes.
– In **CA-27**, Republican Mike Garcia led Democrat George Whitesides by about 4,800 votes on Election Day, but continued counting post-election ballots shifted the result in favor of Whitesides.
### Federal Lawsuits Over Voter Rolls
California is not alone in raising questions about election integrity. It is one of six states recently sued by the Department of Justice for refusing to allow audits of their voter rolls. The others are Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed these lawsuits, citing violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). These laws require states to maintain accurate voter registration lists and to make them available for inspection.
The refusal by these states to produce their voter rolls for inspection suggests they might contain inaccurate registrations, including deceased individuals, people who have relocated, and potentially illegal aliens. As with states that count ballots after Election Day, these voter rolls serve as reservoirs of surplus voters who could be exploited by unethical election officials when margins are narrow.
### Why the Supreme Court Must Act
The Supreme Court must use *Watson v. Republican National Committee* to put an end to post-election vote counting. This practice clearly contradicts the will of Congress, as expressed over 150 years ago, and federal statutes should preempt conflicting state laws.
—
**Virginia Wild Card: Turnout Among Black Voters**
**Is John Fetterman Running For President?**
*(This section may be explored separately, as it diverges from the main topic.)*
—
*End of Article*
https://spectator.org/scotus-must-stop-mail-in-voting-madness/
