“Blockbuster!” MAJOR UPDATE at US Supreme Court
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Supreme Court heard arguments in RNC vs. Mississippi, a case challenging mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
- ❖Conservative justices indicated a willingness to question the legality of early voting and even the verification of ballots after Election Day.
- ❖The RNC's lawyer faced scrutiny over past Republican positions on counting late mail-in votes.
- ❖The Purcell principle, which advises against changing election rules close to an election, was raised but dismissed by the RNC's counsel.
- ❖The guest believes this case is part of a broader RNC strategy to restrict voting methods, including all mail-in and early voting, and enforce a 'stop the count' policy for unverified ballots.
Insights
1Conservative Justices Question Early Voting and Post-Election Verification
Beyond the immediate issue of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch indicated a broader interpretation of 'Election Day' that could deem early voting unconstitutional. Justice Barrett also raised concerns about ballots not being fully verified by Election Day, suggesting they might be invalid, which could lead to millions of votes being discarded, particularly in urban areas.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were 'ready to say that...the whole idea of early voting is probably unconstitutional' (). Justice Barrett 'originally brought up...what about the verification process?' for ballots, noting it often occurs after Election Day (, ).
2RNC's Inconsistent Stance on Late Ballots Highlighted
Liberal justices questioned the RNC's current position against counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day by pointing out that in the 2000 election, Republicans advocated for counting such votes, which were crucial to George Bush's victory. The RNC's lawyer, Paul Clement, dismissed this as a 'reddest of herrings' but struggled to provide a strong counter-argument.
Liberal justices 'asked about a point by me in our brief about how in 2000 the Republicans were all for counting these late received mail-in votes and in fact those votes were the difference between George Bush winning and Al Gore winning' (). Paul Clement 'called it the reddest of herrings' ().
3The RNC's Broader Strategy: Dismantling Mail-in and Early Voting
The guest, Mark Elias, interprets the RNC's legal challenges as a systematic effort to restrict all forms of voting that occur before or are processed after Election Day. He predicts that if they win this case, they will next challenge early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and ultimately push for a 'stop the count' policy for any ballot not fully verified by Election Day, impacting millions of votes in Democratic-leaning cities.
The guest states, 'this is not the last case the RNC is going to bring. That this is just the way that they get into attacking all absentee voting because they're cast before election day and attacking early voting' (). He later adds, 'if they win this case, they will challenge early voting. They will challenge no excuse absentee voting...And this latest twist, stop the count' ().
Bottom Line
The RNC's legal strategy, as revealed in the arguments, extends beyond simply disallowing late-received mail-in ballots to potentially challenging the fundamental process of ballot verification itself if it occurs after Election Day.
This could lead to a 'stop the count' scenario where millions of valid votes, particularly in populous urban areas, are discarded simply because their verification cannot be completed by midnight on Election Day, regardless of when they were cast.
Advocacy groups and election officials need to proactively educate the public and prepare legal defenses against challenges to post-Election Day ballot verification processes, highlighting the practical impossibility and disenfranchising effects of such a requirement.
Key Concepts
Purcell Principle
A legal doctrine stating that courts should not change election rules in close proximity to an election to avoid voter confusion and disruption. Justice Kavanaugh questioned its applicability in this case, but the RNC's lawyer dismissed its relevance, arguing states could easily adapt.
Lessons
- Stay informed about ongoing legal challenges to voting rights by following reliable sources like Democracy Docket.
- Understand that legal challenges to voting methods are part of a broader, long-term strategy that could impact all forms of voting beyond Election Day.
- Recognize the potential for a 'stop the count' scenario related to ballot verification, which could disproportionately affect urban voters.
Notable Moments
Paul Clement, arguing for the RNC, visibly reacted with discomfort when confronted by liberal justices about the RNC's past support for counting late mail-in ballots in the 2000 election, calling it the 'reddest of herrings.'
This moment exposed a perceived inconsistency in the RNC's legal position, suggesting their current arguments are more about political advantage than consistent legal principle, and potentially swayed some justices.
Justice Kavanaugh questioned the RNC's lawyer about the Purcell principle, which advises against changing election rules close to an election, implying concern about the timing and impact of a potential ruling.
This indicates that at least one conservative justice is considering the practical disruption a ruling could cause, though the RNC's lawyer downplayed its significance.
Quotes
"The conservative justices lined up immediately against the idea of counting ballots that are postmarked by election day but received afterwards. They lined up against it and went so far, Brian, as I predicted, to question whether early voting should be allowed or whether it also violates the federal law..."
"He called it the reddest of herrings. You know, how dare you, you know, how dare how dare we we go we revisit uh the 2000 election."
"If we agree with you here, does that mean you are not going to come back and argue that this next campaign finance provision is unconstitutional? And the Republican uh lawyers for the for the party were like, 'No, no, no. We're definitely not saying we won't come back and argue that in the next case. We may very well.'"
"Does this mean that essentially all ballots that are not verified by election, they have to be tossed out? It sounds a whole lot like stop the count."
"If they win this case, they will challenge early voting. They will challenge no excuse absentee voting. They will only want military members to be able to vote by mail. And this latest twist, stop the count."
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."
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."
Miss. Lawmakers Push New Voting Rights Act. AI ICE Propaganda. Trump Global Threats.
"Mississippi lawmakers fight national voter suppression with a state-level Voting Rights Act, while the White House uses AI for propaganda and Trump's global blunders highlight America's decline, forcing a hard look at the viability of Black institutions."
Scott Jennings Notices Something in Trump’s Chilling Warning No One Noticed
"Dave Rubin dissects Donald Trump's aggressive Iran strategy and the ensuing political polarization, arguing that Democrats are actively undermining American success and national identity through policies like birthright citizenship and DEI."