The 5th Circuit's ruling against post-Election Day ballot receipt violates law, history, and federalism
Source: David H. Gans. "Trump’s voting nemesis is at the Supreme Court.." March 13, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that a conservative appeals court wrongly struck down Mississippi's law allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive a few days after Election Day. He says this violates both legal principles and historical precedent, since states have always had the right to set rules for counting ballots, and similar laws existed during the Civil War to protect soldiers' votes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should overturn the 5th Circuit's decision that invalidated Mississippi's law allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days
Premises
- Federal election laws specify when voters must act (Election Day) but are silent about state processes for receiving and counting ballots after votes are cast
- States have historically possessed broad authority to regulate ballot receipt timing, counting procedures, and winner certification processes
- During the Civil War era, many states enacted laws with grace periods for post-Election Day ballot receipt to protect soldiers' voting rights, establishing historical precedent
- The 5th Circuit's ruling rewrites federal law without basis in statutory text and arrogates states' traditional authority over election administration
- The circuit court's decision would cause mass disenfranchisement of absentee voters due to postal delays beyond their control
- The 5th Circuit has a pattern of issuing radical rulings that are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court
Assumptions
- Historical practices during the Civil War era are relevant precedent for interpreting modern federal election laws
- Protecting voting rights should take precedence over strict temporal interpretations of Election Day
- States should retain primary authority over election administration details not explicitly governed by federal law
- The Supreme Court will consider historical evidence and federalism principles in their decision