A potential Supreme Court ruling in June on whether states may count some mail ballots that arrive after Election Day has election administrators and state officials preparing for possible operational changes heading into the November midterm elections, according to accounts from Monday’s arguments.
As the U.S. Supreme Court heard the dispute, Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar said he immediately directed his staff to prepare for how November voting would work if the court changes the rules. Aguilar, a Democrat, described the central problem as educating voters about the process “shortly before the election,” which he said “doesn’t happen overnight,” because “the election planning happens long before.”
Nevada and 13 other states, according to the accounts provided in the hearing coverage, allow regular mail ballots sent by Election Day but received some days afterward to be counted. Another 15 states have grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters, an arrangement that has also been part of the backdrop for the justices’ consideration.
During the nearly two-hour arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the Republican National Committee’s attorney, Paul Clement, whether a June ruling would still leave enough time for election administrators to comply. Clement responded that “June would give them plenty of time” for the November election. Tammy Patrick, a former Arizona election official who now works as chief programs officer at the National Association of Elections Officials’ Election Center, said that timeframe overlooks how election offices operate: she said many have already printed flyers, signs and even ballot envelopes with current election deadlines, meaning they would have to scramble to reprint materials if the high court’s decision changed what deadlines apply.
Patrick said the challenge for administrators is the gap between court timing and budgeting and production schedules. She noted that “Nobody has put in their budget to reprint all of their educational material for the midterms,” calling that “the hard spot election administrators are in.” She also pointed to how election laws have shifted in recent cycles, saying officials increasingly struggle to adjust when rules change close to elections.
The case focuses on a relatively small portion of ballots counted in an election year, but officials said that share still matters for access and planning. In Nevada, the coverage said, 98% of all mail ballots arrive before Election Day, and of those that arrive later, 95% arrive the next day. In Illinois—another state that has a grace period for late-arriving ballots—106,000 ballots arrived within the state’s 14-day grace period in 2024, the coverage said, out of 5.5 million votes cast. Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said the biggest hurdle if the deadline were changed would be informing voters that they face a tighter deadline, adding that the board would work with local offices to spread the word.
The concerns are also shaped by geography and local voting logistics. In Alaska, the coverage said, a 10-day grace period functions as a civic lifeline for communities separated by enormous distances and isolated population centers sometimes connected only by air. Michelle Sparck of Get Out the Native Vote said she found the idea that the outcome of Watson v. RNC could reshape elections quickly after June “horrifying,” and said it would require thousands of Alaskans to rethink “the way they approach voting by Election Day.”
Election calendars can also limit how quickly states can change mailing timelines. Debra O’Malley, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts secretary of state’s office, said Massachusetts holds its primary Sept. 1, so it cannot send out its general election ballots earlier than that. She said “You can’t turn these things around on a dime,” and raised concerns about whether there is any flexibility for itineraries that the court might prefer.
Patrick said the situation reflects a broader election-management reality: election offices sometimes face large swings in voting laws in periods that require months of preparation. She pointed to Texas, where, she said, 3,000 pieces of legislation related to elections were introduced in the state legislature last year. She linked that pressure to why the Supreme Court has invoked what it calls the Purcell principle—named for a prior case out of Arizona—as a rule cautioning courts against changing procedures too close to an election.
In arguing the case, the litigation posture included a challenge to a Mississippi law allowing the counting of mail ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive up to five days later. The coverage said the Republican National Committee and Libertarian Party sued to overturn that statute, and it is the case the high court is considering.
Aguilar said he expects Nevada’s office and local election officials to “roll with the punches” if the court rules differently, but he said he is concerned about a disruptive decision. “To change the rules of the game in the middle of the competition does not do anyone any good,” Aguilar said.