mailin

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Mississippi’s landmark mail-in ballot case

1 of 2 | A young girl pictured October 2020 helping her mother deposit her ballot in a drop box for the 2020 general election at the Los Angeles County Registrar in Norwalk, Calif. Around 16 states currently count late ballots, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 10 (UPI) — The nation’s high court will decide if mail-in ballots need to be submitted by Election Day in a ruling that could affect the 2026 midterm election.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on whether individual states can accept mail-in ballots sent on Election Day, in a bid by Mississippi GOP leaders to overturn a similar state law.

“The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — Election Day can swing close races and change the course of the country,” Mississippi’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, wrote in court documents.

Mississippi election law permits mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

Around 16 states currently count ballots received after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The practice has been targeted by the Republican National Committee. A Mississippi court backed state Republicans in the belief that state statutes preempt federal law.

In addition, Mississippi’s Libertarian Party also joined the lawsuit in opposition to the state’s current practice.

Each state manages its own election process. But federal law states election day is the first Tuesday in November.

Republicans claim that states accepting ballots after Election Day is a contravention of federal law.

“It should await a case where the lower court answers the question presented incorrectly, should one ever arise,” the RNC stated in a court filing.

U.S. President Donald Trump has flip-flopped on the issue of mail-in ballots for years, most recently in opposition as Republicans seek to expand and maintain power ahead of next year’s election, including efforts at mid-cycle redistricting after sweeping nationwide defeats for the GOP in state and local races on Nov. 4.

Meanwhile, oral arguments in the case are expected next year.

A decision could arrive as early as summer 2026, ahead of November’s mid-term elections.

Source link

Judge blocks proof-of-citizenship requirement for mail-in voting

Oct. 31 (UPI) — A federal judge in Washington permanently blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for those who cast mail-in ballots.

The president lacks the authority to change federal election procedures because the Constitution places that authority with Congress and the respective states, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on Friday.

“The president directed the Election Assistance Commission to ‘take appropriate action’ to alter the national mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of United States citizenship,” Kollar-Kotelly said in her 81-page ruling.

Because Trump does not have the authority to order the EAC to alter federal election procedures, Kollar-Kotelly permanently enjoined the EAC and others from enforcing the president’s directive.

The ruling arises from challenges to Executive Order 14,248 — Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections, which Trump signed on March 25.

In it, the president orders the EAC to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form to ensure foreign nationals are not submitting votes via mail-in ballots.

State or local officials in turn would record the type of document used to show proof of citizenship.

The executive order also requires mail-in ballots to be received on or before election day for them to count.

The Democratic National Committee, League of United Latin American Citizens and League of Women Voters Education Fund filed the federal lawsuit against the president and the Republican National Committee to stop enforcement of the executive order.

“While the fight is far from over, we’re glad the court agreed that a president cannot ‘short circuit’ Congress and unilaterally use an illegal executive order to obliterate the rights of millions of voters,” said Marcia Johnson, who is chief counsel for the League of Women Voters, in a prepared statement.

Although Kollar-Kotelly blocked the enforcement of Trump’s executive order, other parts of the lawsuit are yet to be decided.

Source link