Reflections on SCotUS Deciding the Fate of Mail-in Ballots
Fri, 10/04/2026 - 05:00
Each day, the world of wearing masks and diligently sanitizing every surface begins to fade into memory, settling somewhere alongside the nights we fell asleep in front of the television and woke to the surreal horrors of Adult Swim. However, 2020’s COVID-19 pandemic lies fresh on the mind of the law, as the battle to uphold or upend changes made by government, on all levels, rages on. With the midterm election coming up, the Supreme Court recently heard arguments for a case it intends to decide by June that concerns the fate of the mail-in ballot.
For the eyes of some future archeologist, evidence of the CDC’s advice to “social distance” remains intact, despite some effort to strike it from the record: glass screens, markings indicating a space of 6 feet, stickers that portray proper technique for wearing a mask, and so on. Following the CDC’s social distancing guidelines, it is no surprise that the institution of the absentee ballot was expanded dramatically to curb the time-honored tradition of standing in line to vote in-person on Election Day, a congressional designation for the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November. With only 28% of voters casting a ballot in-person, the 2020 election might be remembered as the year we stayed home.
Paradigmatic of such expansions was Mississippi’s change to, “its election laws to allow mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day (Scotus Blog).” In 2024, the Republican National Committee and Mississippi’s Libertarian party filed a combined suit with a federal court contending, “that the Mississippi law conflicted with the federal law setting the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the ‘election day (Scotus Blog).’” On the district level, a judge upheld the law stating that the law does not interfere with congress’ intentions in establishing an election day. The plaintiffs appealed with success and the decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. A plea for the court to rehear the case was denied and the Supreme Court decided to step in, bringing us to the present moment where they recently heard arguments about the case.
Amid this quibbling about the exact nature of “election day,” one may forget some of the political reasons that the issue has attracted the attention of the all-too-busy Supreme Court. The terms “mail-in” and “absentee” are used interchangeably today, but the latter term more closely indicates the roots of the practice as a method of voting for those with an excuse to be absent on election day (most often military service). “During the 1864 presidential election—in which Republican incumbent President Abraham Lincoln defeated Democratic candidate George McClellan—Union soldiers voted in camps and field hospitals, under the supervision of clerks or state officials (TIME).” In 1978 a great relaxation of these guidelines was introduced by California, which “became the first state to allow voters to apply for an absentee ballot without having to provide an excuse (TIME).”
Groups that are both non-partisan and non-profit in California advocate for voter registration and direct their efforts towards presenting voting as an easy activity that does not interfere with the busy schedules of voters. The mail-in ballot fits perfectly with this message as one can receive a ballot in the mail, review it, and send it to an election center at one’s convenience. Although one can also see how “election day,” on this view is no longer a community activity of the sort we have in our imaginations: long lines, kindly voting booth operators, the proud donning of an “I Voted" sticker. Despite states often having provisions in place for workers to have paid time off to vote, the promotion of mail-in voting helps us treat the activity as something to squeeze into our otherwise busy schedules. Why is something so important as a national election treated as an inconvenience?
Since the 2016 election, one where about 1 in 4 votes was cast by mail, talk of supposed rampant voter fraud within the mail-in ballot system has been prevalent. According to research carried about by MIT, “only 0.00006% of the 250 million votes by mailed ballots nationwide were fraudulent.” Further, “scholars at Stanford University’s Democracy and Polarization Lab analyzing 1996-2018 data in three of these universal vote-by-mail states (California, Utah and Washington) didn’t find vote-by-mail advantaged one political party over another.”
Despite the numbers that indicate the overwhelming safety of mail-in ballots, controversy reigns. If we have forgotten, the Supreme Court is involved in a case to limit the practice of mail-in voting. Yet, this controversy seems abstract. Interested parties battle it out behind closed doors. What this battle is about seems obscure to us on the outside. Is it about restoring community? Is it about further striking COVID from the record, by getting us “back to normal?” Is it about power? It’s probably all those things and none of them. Meaning, we are condemned to sit and wait for a decision.
By Yanis Azzou, Library Assistant
