The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward to be counted, in a 5-4 ruling. The decision is seen as a setback for Republican challenges to similar state laws.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, warned that the practice could harm the legitimacy of elections and open the door to voter fraud.
Alito's striking scenario
In his dissent, Alito outlined a hypothetical scenario in which the outcome of a presidential election hinges on late-arriving absentee ballots. In the scenario, one candidate leads by 15,000 votes on election night, but days later, absentee ballots push the opponent ahead by fewer than 100 votes.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during oral arguments in the case, said: "If the apparent winner on election morning loses because of late-arriving absentee ballots, allegations that the election was rigged could explode."
An invitation to voter fraud
Alito emphasized that the ruling could increase opportunities for election fraud, citing a 2005 commission chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, which found absentee ballots to be "the biggest potential source of voter fraud in American elections."
Alito said: "Today's decision is not only inconsistent with legal text, context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce unfortunate consequences. The majority's decision opens a tangled knot of troubling election law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in the integrity of elections."
Democrats express satisfaction
Democratic Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state expressed satisfaction that the Supreme Court did not interfere with Washington's mail-in voting system. Perez said: "If you work shift work, have young children, or live in a rural area, you can't take time off work to stand in line to vote. For decades, Washington's secure mail-in voting system has made it easier for these people to participate in democracy and have their voices heard."
Majority opinion: Policy debate does not belong in court
The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that whether allowing absentee ballots is good policy is outside the court's purview. Barrett said: "Plaintiffs argue that requiring ballots to be received by Election Day preserves election integrity and increases voter confidence in outcomes. But as we have said repeatedly, policy arguments should be directed to legislatures, not courts."
