On October 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant ruling regarding the deadlines for counting mail-in ballots, determining that federal law mandates that such ballots be counted no later than Election Day. This ruling specifically challenged a Mississippi law that permitted ballots to be counted if they arrived within five days post-election, provided they were postmarked on or before Election Day. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling came at a crucial time, merely weeks before the upcoming 2024 elections, and sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration while not imposing an immediate injunction against Mississippi’s law.
The decision was pivotal in reaffirming federal authority over electoral processes, particularly in an environment shaped by changes stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, when several states adapted their voting regulations. The legislation in question had been retained by Mississippi even after the pandemic ended. Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee who authored the opinion, stated that the Mississippi law directly conflicts with federal law, which demands that ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted. This determination was celebrated by the Republican National Committee (RNC), with Chairman Michael Whatley calling it a “seismic win” for ensuring fair and secure elections.
In his opinion, Judge Oldham resisted implementing a permanent injunction against the Mississippi statute, suggesting that such action could disrupt the electoral status quo just before an election. He emphasized the need for further proceedings in the lower court, referencing the Supreme Court’s reluctance to endorse last-minute changes to voting protocols, as highlighted in the Purcell v. Gonzalez decision. His rationale included a broader understanding of the constitutional framework guiding elections, underscoring Congress’s power to dictate the timing and conditions of federal elections.
Oldham also clarified the difference between the acts of casting and counting ballots. He remarked that regardless of when ballots were received, the outcome of the election is determined as soon as ballots are collected and the casting procedure is concluded. By differentiating between what it means for a ballot to be cast versus counted, Oldham reinforced the principle that an election’s validity hinges on the timeliness of ballot receipt rather than their submission date. This interpretation is relevant not only to Mississippi but resonates throughout numerous states with similar mail-in ballot regulations.
Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling aligns with wider discussions around mail-in voting, notably among swing states like Nevada and other regions that rely heavily on mail ballots, such as Colorado and Oregon. The RNC’s ongoing legal battles across various states, including a previous lawsuit in Nevada that was dismissed, reflects a broader strategy aimed at contesting perceived irregularities in voting laws nationwide. The organization is actively involved in numerous lawsuits, demonstrating an intense focus on election integrity issues leading up to the national elections.
Compounding the situation, the same day as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, another federal court decision halted Virginia’s initiative to purge non-citizen voters from its rolls, citing compliance issues with the National Voter Registration Act. This string of judicial actions across various states indicates an evolving and contentious electoral landscape, where federal courts are increasingly called upon to mediate conflicts between state laws and federal regulations. As jurisdictions navigate these complicated issues, the evolving interpretation of voting regulations will undoubtedly impact the integrity and functioning of the electoral system in the United States.