Supreme Court Says States Can Count Mail-In Ballots Arriving After Election Day

Supreme Court Says States Can Count Mail-In Ballots Arriving After Election Day

The justices' decision and three other recent federal rulings will affect state and local elections.

A Massachusetts District Court ruled that the federal mail-in voter registration form could not be changed to require documentary proof of citizenship. (George Clerk/Getty Images)

Recent federal court activity will impact state and local elections, beginning in November. Here are four rulings you need to know about.

1. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states may count ballots that arrive after Election Day. The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, was a challenge to a Mississippi law that allowed ballots to be counted if they arrive within five days after Election Day. From a national perspective, the core of the case was whether states may establish laws allowing ballots to be received after Election Day. The justices said states allowing post-Election Day receipt of ballots is allowable under federal law and does not conflict with the concept of Election Day. The ruling means that the 30 states accepting ballots after Election Day may proceed with their established processes and ballot receipt deadlines.

2. The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts permanently blocked on Wednesday, June 24, key elements of a March 25, 2025, executive order that was already largely blocked by a preliminary injunction. In particular, the injunction determined that:

• The federal mail-in voter registration form cannot be changed to require documentary proof of citizenship, or DPOC.
• An executive order alone cannot change the deadline for absentee/mail ballots to be returned to election officials.
• Federal grant funds to states cannot be conditional on state implementation of DPOC or an Election Day ballot-return deadline.

3. The Massachusetts court also permanently blocked significant elements of a March 31, 2025, executive order. The court's June 24 ruling:

• Blocked the requirement that the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters permitted to vote in federal elections.
• Blocked proposed U.S. Postal Service rules that would have required states to provide a list of all mail voters to the service and prevented mail ballot delivery to voters not on this list.
• Appears to apply only to the 23 plaintiff states and Washington, D.C. The executive order appears to remain in effect for 27 states due to a separate ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruling.

4. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down on Monday, June 22, modifications to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system run by the Department of Homeland Security. The SAVE system was originally designed to allow officials to verify benefits eligibility for individual applicants.

Significant modifications to the SAVE system in 2025 allowed government officials to conduct bulk searches using voter lists and Social Security Administration data, giving them the ability to assess citizenship status for nearly any person in the nation. In some cases, states used the SAVE system to assess the citizenship status of all voters in their statewide databases. States can verify voter citizenship in a variety of ways in addition to using the SAVE system.

The D.C. District Court found that the modifications to the SAVE system were unlawful. The court held that the modifications violated the privacy protections of the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, and that the implementation of the system changes violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The judge noted that the federal government was aware that the SAVE System did not meet legal privacy requirements, citing "Internal 'Privacy Threshold Analysis' documents from July and September 2025 showing that DHS was aware that the modification of SAVE was 'not in compliance' with the Privacy Act."

It is unlikely that another court will review all of the cases before the midterm elections, but there may be appeals. Beyond these cases, there is still uncertainty as President Donald Trump continues to prioritize the SAVE America Act. Although the bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, it has stalled in the Senate. Trump recently refused to sign bipartisan housing legislation passed by Congress until the SAVE America Act is passed, according to The Hill.

Luke Belant is a project manager in NCSL's Elections and Redistricting Program.