4 WATSON v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ALITO, J., dissenting election-day statutes did not require that anything more be done before midnight on election day. Of course, no one could know the outcome of the election until those ballots were examined and the valid ballots were counted, but it was not necessary for those steps to be finished on election day because the electorate’s choices had been authoritatively expressed. Today, not all voting occurs in person on election day. Both voting by mail and early voting have become popular, and respondents do not dispute the lawfulness of these modern practices. Nor do I. But acceptance of these practices cannot change the fact that under federal law, the electorate’s collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on election day. That requirement is met in a jurisdiction with mail voting or early voting provided that the critical act occurs on election day: the completion of the collection of the ballots that embody the electorate’s collective choice. That is what took place when all voting was done in person, and compliance with the election-day statutes demands that the same occur in a modern election. The Court disagrees and concludes that the election-day statutes merely require that each individual cast a vote on or before election day. See ante, at 9. But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand. Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date. Under the challenged Mississippi law, however, the collection of ballots continues for five more days, and therefore the “election” is not held until the end of that period. Because federal law requires that the