Previous 6 / 48 Next

2 WATSON v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE Opinion of the Court in Congress “ultimately.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 362 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). The Constitution’s system for Presidential elections is similar. State legislatures may “direct” the “Manner” of appointing “Electors” to vote for President and Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 2. But “Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes.” Art. II, §1, cl. 4. Initially, Congress allowed States significant leeway with respect to the timing of elections. States had a 34-day window to appoint Presidential electors and exercised total control over the timing of other federal elections. See Act of Mar. 1, 1792, ch. 8, §1, 1 Stat. 239; J. Stonecash, J. Boscarino, & R. Kersh, Congressional Intrusion To Specify State Voting Dates for National Offices, 38 Publius: J. Federalism 137, 141–142 (2008). As soon became clear, this scheme was not the founding generation’s finest. Fraud, or at least allegations of it, ran rampant—because States could hold elections on different days, voters could travel across the country, casting ballots in multiple States. See Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 1st Sess., 679 (1844); J. Silbey, The American Political Nation, 1838–1893, pp. 147–148 (1991) (Silbey). So in 1845, Congress enacted the first election-day statute, setting Presidential elections for the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Act of Jan. 23, 1845, ch. 1, 5 Stat. 721. Allegations of fraud continued to plague the election of Representatives, which still took place on different days in different States. See Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., 618 (1872); H. R. Rep. No. 31, 40th Cong., 3d Sess., pt. 2, pp. 77– 78 (1869). Having one election day for the President and another for Representatives was also burdensome, because citizens were “forced to turn out” to the polls on “two different election days.” Foster, 522 U. S., at 73–74. Plus, the results in States with early elections could influence voting in States that lagged behind. Ibid. So in 1872, Congress

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Watson v. Republican National Committee

Judgment

Question Presented: Do federal election-day statutes preempt state laws allowing ballots cast by Election Day to be received and counted after that date?

Alleged Acts: While Mississippi requires voters to cast absentee ballots by this federal deadline, the state legislature amended its election code in 2020 to permit the counting of mail-in ballots received up to five business days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by that Tuesday.

Procedural history: In 2024, the Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party, and Libertarian Party sued Secretary of State Michael Watson, arguing that federal election law establishing singular election day preempted MS's five-day window statute. District court sided with SOS, ruling that laws did not contradict. 5th Cir. Ct. reversed, saying federal law necessitated ballots be received and counted by Election Day.

Summary: Watson v. RNC arose from a challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days. The Republican National Committee, Mississippi Republican Party, and Libertarian Party of Mississippi argued that federal election-day statutes (2 U.S.C. §§1, 7; 3 U.S.C. §1) require ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day, claiming Mississippi’s law violated federal law and extended the election beyond the federally mandated date. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson defended the law, asserting that an election is completed when voters cast their ballots, not when the state receives them. The law was designed to accommodate voters who may face postal delays, including military and overseas voters.

Conclusion: Mississippi's mailing vote provision is constitutional under federal preemption doctirne, separation of powers doctrine, and the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution.

Legal Issue(s)

Deadline(s)
Election Date

Applicable Law(s): Elections Clause (Art. I, Section 4) of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 29, 2026

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8906

Longitude: -77.0047

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf

Primary Documents

Watson v. RNC.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Watson v. Republican National Committee

Primary Documents

Notifications