Watson v. Republican National Committee
Whether Mississippi's law requiring absentee ballots to be received by Election Day — rather than merely postmarked by Election Day — violates federal law, specifically the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) or the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Background & Facts
Mississippi law requires that absentee ballots be received by election officials no later than Election Day in order to be counted. In practice, this means that ballots postmarked before or on Election Day but arriving afterward are rejected. Federal law — specifically the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which protects the voting rights of military personnel and Americans living abroad — requires states to accept and count ballots from covered voters that are timely submitted. The Republican National Committee and other plaintiffs sued Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, arguing that the state's receipt deadline unlawfully prevented valid UOCAVA ballots from being counted and violated federal statutes protecting absentee voters.
The United States District Court sided with the plaintiffs, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Mississippi's strict Election Day receipt deadline could not be applied to ballots protected under UOCAVA because it conflicted with federal law. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that federal law preempts state deadlines that effectively disenfranchise military and overseas voters whose ballots were sent on time but arrived late due to mail delays. The court's October 2024 decision prompted Mississippi's Secretary of State to seek Supreme Court review, which was granted in November 2025.
Why This Case Matters
This case could have major implications for how states administer elections, particularly the balance of power between state election laws and federal statutes protecting military and overseas voters. If the Supreme Court sides with Mississippi, states would have broader authority to enforce strict receipt deadlines, potentially resulting in more ballots from military and overseas citizens being rejected. Conversely, a ruling for the respondents would reinforce federal protections requiring states to accommodate late-arriving ballots from UOCAVA-covered voters, affecting election administration in many states with similar laws.
Beyond UOCAVA, the case touches on broader questions about federal preemption of state election laws and the extent to which Congress can override state deadlines in the name of protecting voting rights. With military and overseas voters casting tens of thousands of ballots in close elections, the Court's decision could prove decisive in future elections and will shape the legal landscape for absentee voting nationwide.
The Arguments
Mississippi's Election Day receipt deadline for absentee ballots is a valid, neutral state election administration rule that federal law does not preempt. UOCAVA guarantees military and overseas voters the opportunity to vote, but does not override a state's reasonable deadline requiring ballots to be received — not merely mailed — by Election Day. States have broad authority under the Elections Clause and the Constitution to set the rules for when ballots must be received.
- UOCAVA requires states to allow covered voters to submit ballots, but does not mandate that states count ballots arriving after Election Day.
- States have historically held broad authority to set election administration rules, including receipt deadlines, under the Elections Clause of the Constitution.
- Requiring states to count ballots arriving after Election Day creates administrative chaos and undermines election finality, as results cannot be certified until an indefinite post-election window closes.
- The Fifth Circuit's ruling improperly used federal statute to override a neutral, generally applicable state election rule, setting a dangerous precedent for federal intrusion into state election administration.
Mississippi's strict Election Day receipt deadline violates UOCAVA because it effectively prevents military and overseas voters — who face unique mailing delays outside their control — from having their ballots counted even when timely submitted. Federal law preempts the state deadline to the extent it conflicts with UOCAVA's mandate to protect the voting rights of covered voters.
- UOCAVA was enacted precisely to address the unique challenges faced by military and overseas voters, including mail delays that are often beyond their control.
- Applying a rigid Election Day receipt deadline to UOCAVA voters conflicts with the statute's purpose and its requirement that states provide meaningful absentee voting opportunities.
- The Supremacy Clause requires that the state receipt deadline yield to the contrary federal mandate protecting military and overseas voters.
- Invalidating the receipt deadline as applied to UOCAVA voters is a narrow remedy that preserves state authority in all other respects while vindicating critical federal rights.
Precedent Cases Cited
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (statutory construction cases)
52 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq.
UOCAVA is the central federal statute at issue, requiring states to provide absentee voting opportunities to military and overseas citizens and forming the basis for the respondents' preemption argument.
Purcell v. Gonzalez
549 U.S. 1
Petitioner invokes this case for the principle that federal courts should be cautious about ordering changes to state election laws close to an election, supporting deference to state election administration rules.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
570 U.S. 1
This case addressed the scope of federal preemption of state voter registration requirements under the National Voter Registration Act and the Elections Clause, which is directly relevant to the preemption analysis here.
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
594 U.S. 647
Both sides cite this case regarding the standards for evaluating state voting restrictions under federal law and the scope of states' authority to set election administration rules.
Foster v. Love
522 U.S. 67
This case established that federal law governs the timing of federal elections and that state election rules that conflict with federal statutes setting Election Day are preempted.
Smiley v. Holm
285 U.S. 355
This case is cited for the scope of state authority under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, relevant to the petitioner's argument that states have broad power to administer federal elections.