The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just made waves in the world of election law, especially among those advocating for stricter election integrity. In a case that’s gaining significant attention, Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, the court reversed an earlier decision regarding Mississippi’s ballot handling. The ruling takes aim at a Mississippi statute permitting ballots to be received up to five days after Election Day, concluding that it directly contradicts federal law, state law, and, more importantly, the Constitution. The message? Election Day is meant to be just that—a single day.
This decision from the Fifth Circuit insists that ballots must be both cast and received by Election Day. The court’s reasoning emphasizes that extending ballot receipt windows undermines the uniformity intended by federal election law. According to the ruling, a ballot is “cast” when it reaches state officials, which should happen no later than Election Day. While the court acknowledged that counting may continue past that day, it pointedly ruled that receiving ballots beyond Election Day effectively reopens the vote, disrupting finality and potentially eroding public confidence in the outcome.
Judge Patricia Giles, in her ruling, highlights the importance of maintaining a clear election cutoff to avoid any ambiguity around the results. The court also noted that states allowing ballots to come in after Election Day add unnecessary layers of complexity and create a perception of malleability in election outcomes. From a constitutional perspective, the ruling argues, only Congress holds the authority to set Election Day, and states’ attempts to extend ballot reception periods risk muddying the process. For proponents of election integrity, this decision signifies a return to tradition and clarity.
The timing of this ruling is particularly striking given that it comes so close to Election Day 2024. Many conservatives view this as a much-needed check against what they perceive as lenient or confusing state-level laws that can open the door to potential abuse. They argue that expanding voting timeframes, like allowing ballot receipt days after the election, only serves to dilute the integrity of a one-day national vote. After all, they contend, if deadlines matter for anything, they should certainly matter for something as consequential as electing a president.
Supporters of the decision are optimistic that it could set a precedent not only for Mississippi but for other states as well. They hope that this ruling might encourage courts across the country to similarly uphold Election Day as a firm and final deadline. With many states still facing legal battles over voting laws, this ruling is likely to be a focal point in ongoing debates over how the country approaches voting deadlines and election integrity moving forward.
