Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 21 Opinion of the Court for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives. IV There is one last, late-breaking matter. For the first time in their reply briefs before the Fifth Circuit, plaintiffs argued that Mississippi’s election system violates the election-day statutes because the Postal Service and common carriers allow mail to be recalled. See, e.g., United States Postal Service, Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual §507.5 (Apr. 6, 2026). According to plaintiffs, a voter who regrets her choice after election day may nullify her vote by recalling her ballot from the Postal Service or a common carrier before it is delivered to election officials. And that, plaintiffs insist, means that the electorate’s choice is not actually made as of election day. Plaintiffs have never independently challenged this aspect of Mississippi law. Ballot recall was not the basis for this litigation; it is nowhere mentioned in plaintiffs’ complaints. Even now, plaintiffs frame the possibility of postelection-day recall as simply one reason why counting ballots received after election day violates the federal electionday statutes. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent Libertarian Party of Mississippi 12. For its part, Mississippi denies that voters are allowed to recall their ballots. See Brief for Petitioner 41 (citing Miss. Code Ann. §23–15–637(3)). And it does not dispute that post-election-day recall would violate the election-day statutes. Two principles are important here. First, post-electionday receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election-day statutes. See Part II, supra. Second, state law is preempted by the federal election-day statutes only “ ‘so far as the conflict extends.’ ” Foster, 522 U. S., at 69 (quoting Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 384 (1880), abrogated