The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case with potentially enormous implications for future elections: Watson v. Republican National Committee. The case centers on whether thousands of legally cast ballots should be disqualified based on their arrival date.
At the heart of the dispute is an 1872 law that dictates federal election days occur on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November during even-numbered years. The Republican National Committee (RNC) argues this phrasing implicitly mandates that all ballots must be received on Election Day, rendering any late-arriving mail-in ballots invalid. This interpretation is contested and seemingly overlooked for over 150 years.
The RNC has filed suit against Mississippi, one of several states that accept mail-in ballots postmarked before Election Day but received afterward. Democrats have increasingly relied on mail-in voting in recent elections, a trend President Trump attempted to curb, potentially aiming to make it harder for Democratic voters to cast their ballots.
The RNC’s argument stretches legal precedent significantly and might not have gained traction without the involvement of an unusually conservative panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The decision was penned by Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee known for his frequently overturned rulings. Fellow judges James Ho and Kyle Duncan are also considered right-wing outliers even within the current Republican-leaning judiciary.
Oldham’s opinion asserts that “receipt of the last ballot…constitutes consummation of the election, and it must occur on Election Day,” but he fails to cite any legal backing for this claim. This 5th Circuit panel leans considerably further right than the Supreme Court itself – often voting in line with Republican desires while producing rulings frequently overturned by the higher court due to their questionable reasoning.
Though the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Watson v. RNC raises concerns, particularly if it validates this strained legal theory and potentially jeopardizes future elections, a radical shift seems unlikely. The arguments presented are exceptionally weak and probably lack sufficient support for even three votes on the current court composition.
