In a landmark decision just days before Election Day, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that stops three states—Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas—from counting absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before that date.
This significant ruling could reshape absentee voting practices in these states, requiring all ballots to arrive by Election Day to be counted. The decision only directly affects Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas but could inspire similar challenges to absentee ballot regulations in other states.
Historically, many states have adopted policies that allow absentee ballots to be counted after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by the election date. This practice, often intended to accommodate voters in remote areas or those facing delays in postal service, was challenged in the courts by the Republican Party of Mississippi, which argued that counting ballots received after Election Day violates federal election standards.
The ruling will not impact ballots in the current election cycle due to the close proximity to Election Day. However, the 5th Circuit’s decision requires that absentee ballots must reach election offices by the close of polls on Election Day in future elections, which could change how voters and election officials in these states approach absentee voting logistics.
In its opinion, the court emphasized that federal law mandates voting by Election Day, and state laws cannot extend that timeframe by allowing ballots to be counted later. “Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by Election Day,” the ruling stated. “And federal law does not permit the State of Mississippi to extend the period of voting by one day, five days, or 100 days. The State’s contrary law is preempted.” The decision was unanimous among the three judges on the panel, all of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, a Republican.
The ruling is seen as a victory by many Republicans, who argue that allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day opens the door to potential fraud and undermines election integrity. “This is a seismic win for fair, accurate, secure, and transparent elections,” stated Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley on social media, applauding the court’s decision.
As of now, absentee ballot requirements vary across the country. Thirty-two states already mandate that all absentee ballots be returned by Election Day. In contrast, ten states allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted, as long as they are received within a designated period, typically no more than seven days after Election Day.
Proponents of the court’s decision argue that Election Day deadlines offer clarity and reduce the risk of manipulation, ensuring all votes are counted at the same time. They believe this rule reinforces voter responsibility by requiring ballots to be sent in advance, eliminating delays or issues with mail timing. However, the ruling has drawn criticism from Democrats and voting rights advocates who argue that strict deadlines limit voting access, especially for those who rely on absentee ballots due to travel, health, or disability reasons.
The recent 5th Circuit decision has spurred conversations across the nation, with voting rights activists concerned that other jurisdictions might consider similar restrictions. Many fear that limitations on post-Election Day absentee ballots could potentially disenfranchise voters who may experience mailing delays or have limited access to in-person voting options.
Some Democratic leaders have argued that receiving ballots after Election Day allows for greater flexibility in case of unforeseen events, like extreme weather or postal delays. They believe this flexibility upholds voter rights by accommodating those who are unable to vote in person due to distance or other logistical challenges.
Though unlikely to affect this election cycle, the ruling brings renewed attention to the tension between election integrity and voter accessibility, a point that remains highly polarized across the political landscape. This division is likely to inspire further litigation as states work to interpret federal voting standards in ways that align with their individual electoral priorities.
For now, the decision underscores a legal framework that enforces stricter deadlines on absentee ballots, aiming to ensure consistency but also setting the stage for continued debate on the balance between security and access in U.S. elections.
This ruling’s impact may unfold slowly but will be closely watched by lawmakers, political analysts, and voters alike as the nation continues to grapple with the evolving dynamics of absentee voting.
