BREAKING update at Supreme Court over election scheme
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Supreme Court case, RNC vs. Mississippi, challenges the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterwards.
- ❖Mark Elias, an attorney involved in the case, asserts this is the most critical voting case for upcoming elections.
- ❖The RNC's argument that 'Election Day' means ballots must be *received* on that specific day contradicts current practices in about half of US states.
- ❖Elias predicts a win for the RNC on this issue would lead to challenges against all early voting and mail-in voting.
- ❖The 2000 Florida election precedent saw late-received military ballots counted, which determined the presidential outcome, a position the RNC now opposes.
- ❖The Department of Justice has sided with the RNC, arguing for a narrow exception for military ballots only.
- ❖Historically, mail-in voting had negligible partisan advantage, but due to recent political rhetoric, it now disproportionately benefits Democrats.
- ❖Republicans' push for single-day, in-person voting is framed as a strategy for 'maximum control, voter suppression, and election subversion,' not convenience or accuracy.
Insights
1The RNC's Strategic Challenge to Mail-In Ballots
The RNC filed a lawsuit against the Republican-controlled state of Mississippi, targeting mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received a day or two later. Their argument hinges on a strict interpretation of federal law defining 'Election Day' as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, implying all ballots must be received by then.
Mark Elias states, 'The Republican National Committee... went to Mississippi... and filed a lawsuit against the state of Mississippi... and said that their allowance for these ballots to come in a day or a few days after election day violates the federal election day law.'
2The 'Slippery Slope' to Eliminating All Mail and Early Voting
Mark Elias predicts that if the RNC succeeds in invalidating late-received mail-in ballots, their next target will be all forms of early voting and mail-in voting. He argues their interpretation of 'Election Day' as the *only* day for voting would logically extend to eliminating any voting outside that single day.
Elias warns, 'If they succeed on mail-in ballots postmarked by election day received afterwards, their argument is that Tuesday following the first Monday of November is election day. That's the only day that matters. Well, what else will that mean, Brian? It means no early voting. It means no voting by mail at all.'
3The 2000 Florida Election Precedent and RNC Hypocrisy
In the 2000 presidential election, late-received military ballots (postmarked by Election Day) were counted in Florida, a decision that ultimately secured George W. Bush's victory. The RNC's current stance directly contradicts this historical precedent, demonstrating a shift in their legal position based on perceived partisan advantage.
Elias recounts, 'Back in 2000... there was actually a lawsuit by supporters of Al Gore saying that late received military ballots... should not count. And wouldn't you know it, the federal courts said those ballots did count... So literally this issue is the reason that that George Bush won the election. Now the RNC has no shame. So the RNC has just said, 'Well, that was too bad then and now is now.''
4DOJ's Alignment with the RNC's Position
Surprisingly, the Department of Justice has sided with the RNC in this case, arguing that ballots must be received by Election Day, with an arbitrary exception only for military ballots. Elias criticizes this as an inconsistent and arbitrary legal stance.
Elias states, 'The Department of Justice, which I know is going to surprise you, Brian, is on the side of the RNC in this case... They're saying actually the law should be that ballots have to be in by election day except for military ballots. Now, like that they're just making that up, right? It's completely at that point, it's just completely arbitrary.'
Bottom Line
The RNC strategically chose to sue the Republican-controlled state of Mississippi, a state without no-excuse absentee voting, and aimed for the Fifth Circuit, suggesting an attempt to secure a favorable judicial environment rather than genuinely challenge a widespread issue.
This reveals the RNC's litigation strategy is less about consistent legal principles and more about finding the weakest link in the chain to establish a precedent that can be applied nationally, regardless of the target state's political alignment or existing voting laws.
Advocacy groups can highlight the RNC's selective targeting and the perceived hypocrisy of suing a state with aligned political leadership to expose the underlying political motivations behind the legal challenge.
The Department of Justice siding with the RNC's narrow interpretation of 'Election Day' and arbitrary exception for military ballots signals a significant shift in federal election policy interpretation under the current administration.
This alignment provides a powerful endorsement for the RNC's position, lending federal weight to arguments that could restrict voting access, making the legal battle more challenging for voting rights advocates.
Public awareness campaigns can draw attention to the DOJ's stance, questioning its consistency with broader voting rights principles and potentially mobilizing public opposition against such interpretations.
Lessons
- Subscribe to Democracy Docket (Mark Elias's news outlet) for direct, expert analysis on voting rights and election cases.
- Share information about this Supreme Court case with your network to raise awareness about its potential impact on voting access.
- Resist cynicism about the courts; Mark Elias emphasizes they remain a crucial check against efforts to undermine free and fair elections.
Quotes
"This is an all-out assault on free and fair elections. They're trying to rig it by doing away with mail-in voting. And this case in the US Supreme Court, it is the lynchpin."
"If they succeed on mail-in ballots postmarked by election day received afterwards, their argument is that Tuesday following the first Monday of November is election day. That's the only day that matters. Well, what else will that mean, Brian? It means no early voting. It means no voting by mail at all."
"The Department of Justice, which I know is going to surprise you, Brian, is on the side of the RNC in this case... They're saying actually the law should be that ballots have to be in by election day except for military ballots. Now, like that they're just making that up, right? It's completely at that point, it's just completely arbitrary."
"As imperfect as the courts are, they are more functioning right now than any other check on Donald Trump. And we need to win cases like this one. So don't give into the cynicism. Don't give into the naysaying."
"Why do they want all voting to take place on one day if it is not, as you suggest, to be able to exert maximum control, voter suppression, election subversion, seizing of ballots, you know, ICE at the polls, whatever it is. They sort of seem to want everything happening in a very compressed time frame in a limited number of places and it's not for voter convenience, it's not cheaper, it's not more accurate."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
PBS News Hour full episode, March 23, 2026
"President Trump's surprise diplomatic signals on the Iran war, a fatal plane collision at LaGuardia amidst a federal shutdown, and a Supreme Court case on mail-in ballots dominate a day of complex national and international developments."
Warnock UNLOADS on Trump SAVE Act. Calls It a Power Grab to Block Voters
"Senator Raphael Warnock vehemently opposes the 'SAVE Act,' framing it as a politically motivated voter suppression tactic that disproportionately disenfranchises eligible citizens under the false pretense of preventing non-existent voter fraud."
Trump PANICS at SCOTUS as He Gets BRUTALLY REBUKED | Unprecedented
"The Supreme Court's recent rulings and upcoming hearings signal a significant shift in election law, civil rights for transgender individuals, and the independence of the Federal Reserve, with profound implications for American democracy and economic stability."
HOT TOPICS | WARNING: Donald Trump's Iran War Chaos Has Hit the Point of No Return!
"Don Lemon delivers a scathing critique of Donald Trump's recent actions, framing them as desperate, unconstitutional attempts to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and distract from economic and foreign policy failures, all while questioning his mental stability."