The RNC argues federal law that establishes a uniform Election Day sets the deadline for when ballots must be received. Mississippi officials, however, argue Election Day is the deadline for when a ballot must be cast, and the ballot may be received after that date. The justices will decide which definition of Election Day is legally correct, potentially changing various state laws months ahead of the midterm elections.

WHY OIL AND GAS PRICES ARE UP DESPITE US ‘ENERGY INDEPENDENCE’

In its filings to the high court ahead of oral arguments, the RNC detailed how late-arriving ballot laws have complicated the speed of election results, and argued the laws are unlawful under federal statute.

“Most Americans remember a time when results came quickly after election day,” the RNC said in its brief. “Each election cycle dims that memory as States experiment with novel ballot-handling rules. One of those experiments is the prolonged receipt of mail ballots—three, five, fourteen, or even more days after election day.”

“When Congress designated a single ‘day for the election,’ it set a deadline. If a state law extends the election after that deadline, ‘it conflicts with’ Congress’s timing decision ‘and to that extent is void,’” the brief added.

Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, told the Washington Examiner the case provides a “good opportunity for the Supreme Court to hit the reset button” on state laws that have extended ballot receipt deadlines beyond Election Day and “to restore the rule of law in this space.”

“If you look at the way that this has historically been handled, outside of a few limited exceptions, it’s considered to be a voted ballot when it’s received in the hands of election officials. And as long as that is the case, then it’s very clear what federal law means, that Election Day is the end of voting,” Snead said. “States cannot extend voting beyond the close of polls on the given day, and that’s exactly what 14 states have decided to do.”

The brief filed by Mississippi officials, including Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, said the high court should uphold the state’s late-arriving ballot law by arguing that the Election Day deadline denotes the final day voters have to fill out their ballots, and that by having their mail-in ballots postmarked by that day, voters are still casting them in a timely fashion.

IN FOCUS: THE DOOMSAYERS ARE WRONG ON IRAN. THE WAR IS ALREADY A SUCCESS

“An ‘election’ is the conclusive choice of an officer. The voters make that choice by casting—marking and submitting—their ballots. So the federal election-day statutes require only that the voters cast their ballots by election day,” the brief argued.

“The election has then occurred, even if election officials do not receive all ballots by that day. Under Mississippi law, the voters cast their ballots by election day. So federal law does not preempt Mississippi law,” Mississippi’s brief continued.

Magnolia State officials also argue that Supreme Court precedent points to Election Day being recognized as the final day on which a voter can make his or her selection, rather than the final day election officials can receive a ballot.

Some activist groups urging the high court to uphold Mississippi’s law have expressed concerns over how a Supreme Court ruling could affect voting for active duty military members, whose ballots sometimes arrive late from overseas. Snead pointed to federal laws that create clear cutouts for military voters for their ballots to be accepted even if received after the deadline, claiming those exceptions by Congress strengthen the case that the default deadline for the receipt of ballots is Election Day.

“What that tells me is that Congress is very capable of making it clear, when it wants to, that a particular subset of ballots can be received late. When you’ve got this very narrow, targeted exemption, that certainly heavily implies that the default norm is that ballots must be received by the close of polls on Election Day,” Snead said. “Otherwise, why would you need a law specifying that you can accept late overseas ballots?”

The expected impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling would be fairly limited nationwide, as only 14 states and the District of Columbia have late-arriving mail ballot laws on the books. Still, the ruling, which is widely expected to come in early July at the latest, would also only have a direct impact on the Nov. 3 election, giving states several months to adjust their timelines, should the justices strike down Mississippi’s law.

If the Supreme Court sides with Mississippi and upholds the law, Snead warned that the allowance of late-arriving ballots would continue to undermine the public’s confidence in elections, as well as continue the lawsuits and chaos that occur when mail ballots are received after Election Day.

“These laws really set voters up for failure,” Snead told the Washington Examiner. “And I think if we see the Mississippi law upheld, then not only are you risking confidence in elections, not only are you undermining the rule of law in this space, but you’re also exposing the voters that have to live with these rules to an ongoing election law landscape that really sets them for failure.”

RNC TELLS SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE DOWN LATE-ARRIVING BALLOT LAWS

The Supreme Court will hear arguments at 10 a.m. Monday in Watson v. RNC, with a decision expected in the case by the end of June — months ahead of the midterm elections.

During the current term, the justices have heard various election-related cases, including on candidates’ ability to sue over election laws, campaign finance laws, and race-based congressional redistricting.