Some state officials and election administrators say a Supreme Court decision this June could force states to redraw parts of their midterm election plans, particularly if courts alter whether mail ballots that arrive after Election Day can be counted.
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, described starting that work immediately after Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments, when he texted instructions to his staff “3,000 miles away” to plan for how November voting would proceed under new rules. Aguilar said the central challenge would be “educating voters shortly before the election how the election is going to work,” adding that “the election planning happens long before.”
The court’s session focused on a dispute over mail-ballot grace periods—rules that allow ballots sent by Election Day but received in the following days to be counted. Conservative justices appeared skeptical of the approach in arguments that led into a decision expected in June, according to participants in the hearing described by the Associated Press.
In Nevada and 13 other states, regular mail ballots that arrive some period of days after Election Day can still be counted, while 15 other states have grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters. The case now before the Supreme Court grew out of litigation aimed at Mississippi’s law allowing postmarked ballots to be counted if they arrive up to five days later.
During the nearly two-hour-long arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked RNC attorney Paul Clement whether a June decision could disrupt upcoming elections, and Clement said “June would give them plenty of time” for administrators overseeing November’s voting. Tammy Patrick, a former Arizona election official and chief programs officer at the National Association of Elections Officials’ Election Center, said that timeline does not match how local election offices operate.
Patrick said most offices have already printed flyers, signs, and even ballot envelopes using the current election deadlines for the midterms, meaning administrators would have to scramble to reprint materials if the Supreme Court changes the rules. “Nobody has put in their budget to reprint all of their educational material for the midterms,” Patrick said. “That’s the hard spot election administrators are in.”
Election officials also described state-by-state differences in how much margin grace periods provide. Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said the biggest challenge if the mail ballot deadline changed would be informing voters facing a tighter deadline, with the board coordinating with local offices to spread the word.
In Alaska, where officials said distances and the timing of travel can matter for deliveries, the state’s 10-day grace period functions as a “civic lifeline” for some communities. Michelle Sparck of the group Get Out the Native Vote said: “The thought that the outcome of Watson v. RNC could reshape elections as soon as June is horrifying to me, and for thousands of Alaskans who will have to rethink the way they approach voting by Election Day.”
Other timing constraints also shape how quickly states can respond. Massachusetts has a Sept. 1 primary, so state officials said they cannot send out general election ballots earlier than that, and Debra O’Malley, a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said “You can’t turn these things around on a dime,” adding concern that there is “no give in that schedule for the itinerary the high court might prefer.”
Patrick said election administrators have increasingly struggled to adjust to sudden swings in voting laws that have followed President Donald Trump’s attacks on voting, with state and local offices often required to prepare months in advance. She also said the Supreme Court has cited what it calls the “Purcell principle,” named after a 2006 case, which holds that judges should not change election procedures too close to voting.
Aguilar said he expects Nevada officials will “roll with the punches,” while adding that a disruptive ruling would do “not do anyone any good” if it changes election rules “in the middle of the competition.”