All voters, no matter how they cast their ballot, should have the freedom to make their voices heard. This is a cornerstone of American democracy.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case challenging a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days after an election.
In this case, anti-voter forces are attempting to limit the freedom to vote by disrupting laws that exist in more than 30 states that safeguard voters from being impacted by mail delays beyond their control.
That’s why Campaign Legal Center and Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reaffirm what is outlined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA): States have clear constitutional authority to enact and enforce laws governing ballot receipt deadlines, and Congress has not taken action to disturb those laws.
What is the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA)?
Led by Sens. Joe Manchin and Susan Collins, the ECRA was passed in 2022 to update the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA), an archaic law that provided the primary legal framework for casting and counting Electoral College votes in presidential elections.
This law was rife with outdated and imprecise language, including gaps and ambiguities that President Donald Trump and his allies attempted to exploit as part of an organized effort to overturn the 2020 election.
Although that plan failed, it culminated in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that horrific event drew new attention to the urgent need to update the ECA.
That is why, in early 2021, Campaign Legal Center convened constitutional experts from across the country representing a wide swath of political viewpoints to determine how the law should be modernized.
The result was the passage of the ECRA, which includes reforms related to the certification of election results, guidance on resolving post-election disputes and Congress’ procedure for counting electoral votes, as well as clarifying the ministerial role of the vice president.
Notably, Congress did not impose any changes on states’ vote-by-mail or absentee ballot receipt deadlines. Instead, lawmakers continued the centuries-long practice of deferring to the states’ individual policy choices with respect to mail and absentee ballot deadlines.
What’s At Stake in Watson v. Republican National Committee?
This case is an attempt to forcibly overwrite longstanding laws in more than 30 states and DC that safeguard the freedom to vote by setting reasonable deadlines for election officials to receive mail ballots.
If Congress wanted to change the rules for vote-by-mail receipt deadlines, they would have done so when they overhauled the ECA and passed the ECRA just three years ago. By declining to do so, Congress continued its centuries-long practice of deferring to the rules set by states for mail-in ballot receipt deadlines.
Access to vote-by-mail, when offered in addition to early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters.
That’s why Campaign Legal Center is urging the Supreme Court to reject this effort. Join us in the fight to protect the freedom to vote for all Americans, regardless of how they cast their ballot.