Mississippi's solicitor general, Scott Stewart, walked into the Supreme Court on Monday to defend his state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked in time. He walked out having received more help from the liberal justices than from the conservative ones.
Stewart, who successfully argued the landmark 2022 Dobbs case, was staggered by hypothetical questions from conservative justices that exposed the logical vulnerabilities of Mississippi's position.
The case, Watson v. RNC, pits the state against the Republican National Committee, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, and the Trump administration, all of whom argue that ballots must be received by Election Day, not merely postmarked.
A decision is expected by the end of June, and the outcome could reshape mail-in voting rules in at least 14 states with similar laws, the Post reported.
The trouble for Stewart started when Trump-nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed him on whether states could allow voters to recall mailed ballots before Election Day. Justice Neil Gorsuch then raised the stakes further, asking whether a state could permit a voter to film themselves postmarking a ballot on Election Day and then have it submitted three weeks later. Stewart admitted he had "some concerns" about that scenario.
That concession matters. If Mississippi's solicitor general acknowledges that an Election Day postmark plus three weeks of transit time raises problems, the principle underlying his defense starts to crack. If the postmark is what counts, why does the length of delay matter? And if the length of delay does matter, then perhaps receiving ballots by Election Day is the more coherent standard after all.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both appeared to lean toward overturning the state law. All three Democrat-appointed justices, meanwhile, sounded sympathetic to Mississippi's position.
After Barrett's line of questioning left Stewart struggling, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson intervened. She steered the solicitor general toward a more favorable framing, telling him that the practice of allowing states to run their own elections "actually is pointed in your favor." She also tried to narrow the scope of the case: "This case is not about a Mississippi practice or policy related to recalling ballots."
Jackson added that she was "a little confused about those kinds of policy questions," a comment that functioned less as genuine confusion and more as a signal that the conservative justices' hypotheticals were, in her view, beside the point.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor then interjected with what conservative Justice Samuel Alito dryly identified as a "friendly question." Sotomayor posed this to Stewart:
"If the state wants to make [a relative] a notary … a military officer, if it wants to make it a Supreme Court justice, if it wants to make it anyone, as long as it's done by Election Day, that's what's counts, correct?"
She had earlier challenged Stewart directly: "Why do you fight the premise?" Alito then stepped in to point out the obvious, telling Stewart that Sotomayor was "asking you what, I think, she intends to be a friendly question."
When the liberal wing of the court is coaching your lawyer in real time, the alignment of the case tells you everything you need to know about who benefits from the status quo.
Paul Clement, representing the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, offered the cleaner argument. He contended that when Congress set the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a national Election Day in 1845, it inherently required that voting wrap up on that day. His illustration was simple and effective:
"If somebody in Gulfport the day after the election asks, 'Is the election over?' the common sense answer is, 'No it's not, the ballots are still coming in.'"
He then landed the broader point: "That reality gives the lie to the idea that we have a uniform national election day."
Clement clarified he was not arguing to make early voting illegal. His argument was narrower: the election must conclude on Election Day, which means ballots must be in hand, not merely in transit.
That distinction matters because nearly 30 states currently have grace periods for absentee ballots. A ruling against Mississippi would not eliminate mail-in voting. It would establish that the finish line is the same for everyone.
RNC Election Integrity Communications Director Ally Triolo issued a statement after oral arguments that framed the stakes plainly:
"Watson v. RNC is about a simple principle: ballots must be received by Election Day."
Triolo added that dragging elections out for days and weeks after voters have cast their ballots causes "confusion and undermining our elections." She cited polling showing 83 percent of voters agree ballots should be in by Election Day, and 78 percent say it makes elections more secure.
Those numbers are not controversial. They reflect a basic intuition that most Americans share: an election should end when it's supposed to end.
The case arrives as President Trump pushes Congress to tighten restrictions on mail-in ballots and enact a proof of citizenship requirement for federal elections through the SAVE America Act, which faces an uphill battle in the Senate. A Supreme Court ruling that ballots must be received by Election Day would accomplish through judicial interpretation what the legislative process has so far struggled to deliver.
The deeper issue is whether "Election Day" is a real deadline or a polite suggestion. Mississippi's law treats it as the latter. You cast your ballot into the postal system by Election Day, and then the state waits around for five days to see what shows up. At least 14 other states do the same thing.
The liberal justices' eagerness to rescue Stewart's argument reveals which side of this debate benefits from ambiguity. States' rights is ordinarily a conservative principle, but not when a state is using its discretion to loosen the integrity of a national election. A state can run its own elections. It cannot redefine when a federal election ends.
Clement had the better argument on Monday. The conservative justices seemed to agree. And the liberal justices' decision to play defense attorney for a struggling solicitor general told the story the oral arguments themselves could not.
Election Day should mean something. By June, we'll find out if the Supreme Court agrees.