Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 11 ALITO, J., dissenting omitted). Readers are left guessing what kind of evidence suffices. Perhaps the majority is looking for legislative floor statements or committee reports stating: “We would really like to give the boys in the field some extra time for their ballots to arrive, but alas, the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 prohibits us from doing so.” But see FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., 608 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2026) (slip op., at 11–12) (discounting the probative value of such evidence). Regardless, the majority places the burden on the wrong side. Given the infeasibility of the majority’s alternative explanations for States’ Civil War absentee-voting practices, it would be more appropriate to demand floor statements or a committee report stating: “We don’t think the federal election-day law requires the receipt of ballots by election day, but we will nevertheless relinquish our previously asserted freedom over the timing of elections and voluntarily take on the burden and expense of ensuring that the ballots of our embattled boys on far-flung battlefields and camps arrive here by the end of election day.” Mississippi offers no evidence of this sort. More important, Mississippi does not identify a single State that accepted late-arriving ballots during the Civil War even though States had strong logistical incentives to be lenient on this point. The majority separately worries that using historical practice to interpret the phrase “election” might “tra[p]” States’ election practices “in amber.” Ante, at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the policy of collecting all ballots by election day is entirely consistent with—indeed, is compelled by—the text, context, and history of the election-day statutes, and one reason for codifying legal rules in a statute is to “trap” those rules “in amber” until they are amended. Moreover, the majority’s worries are exaggerated. All agree that the relevant provisions of the electionday statutes regulate only “the time of the election.” Ante, at 6 (quoting Foster v. Love, 522 U. S. 67, 71–72 (1997)). So