Election administration has been — and should be — a core responsibility of the states.
Election administration has been — and should be — a core responsibility of the states.
T his month, the Supreme Court will review Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case that may quietly but profoundly reshape how elections are administered across the country. At issue is whether 100-year-old (and older) federal statutes can now be read to override numerous recent states’ laws that allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted shortly afterward. In 2024, the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal law preempts Mississippi’s ballot-receipt deadline and sharply curtails state discretion. The Court should reverse that ruling.
For most of the nation’s history, election administration has been a core responsibility of the states. The Constitution reflects that design, granting states primary authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, subject to limited federal guardrails. States have used that flexibility to tailor election rules to local geography, population density, and voter needs, particularly in large, rural, or military-heavy states. The decision departs from that settled understanding by casting off the traditional conservative tenant of federalism that states are better at making decisions about themselves than the federal government is.
State ballot-receipt grace periods are not novel or partisan inventions. Many states, governed by Republicans and Democrats alike, have allowed narrow, clearly defined windows for decades. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states currently accept and count mailed ballots from any voter received after Election Day but postmarked on or before Election Day. A total of 29 states accept ballots from military voters sent before or on Election Day but received after. These rules recognize contemporary practical realities: Mail delivery varies; rural voters live far from postal hubs; military and overseas voters face unavoidable delays. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Mississippi, and many other states adopted these policies not to tilt the playing field but to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised by circumstances beyond their control.
It’s important to put the Fifth Circuit ruling in context. The decision relies on 100-year-old federal statutes to overturn laws passed by 16 states since the 1970s. In trying to nationalize when ballots must be received, the Fifth Circuit overrules the judgments of duly elected state legislators in a manner that would further erode the notion of a non-political judiciary.
Upholding the Fifth Circuit’s ruling would not bring uniform clarity — it would invite nationwide chaos. States would have to decide whether to have different rules for federal and state elections. Depending on timing, states would have to amend ballot-receipt deadlines weeks or even days prior to ballots being mailed, creating confusion for voters and administrators alike. It may also call into question long-standing federal and state laws designed to ensure that ballots cast by military and overseas voters are counted, potentially undermining one of the most long-standing, bipartisan commitments in American election law.
As former governors of battleground states, we also see the real-world political consequences of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. Republicans have made meaningful progress in recent election cycles encouraging our voters to use mail-in ballots where state law permits, particularly older voters, rural residents, and military families. That progress reflects a recognition that voting methods are practical tools, not partisan ideology.
Usurping state authority over ballot receipt threatens to reverse those gains. Rural voters often depend on mail voting because Election Day travel can be difficult or costly. Military and overseas voters rely on predictable receipt rules to ensure that their ballots count. Older voters value systems that they understand and trust. Changing those rules through judicial fiat, especially heading into the midterms, risks depressing turnout among precisely the voters Republicans need to engage.
This is not an argument for lax standards or indefinite counting. States can and should set firm, transparent deadlines. The question is, who decides? The Supreme Court has an opportunity in Watson to reaffirm a basic principle of American governance: Federalism is not a technicality, but a safeguard. Entrusting states to manage election logistics within reasonable bounds respects local conditions and strengthens public confidence in the outcome — no matter which party wins.
Overturning the Fifth Circuit would alleviate the potential for administrative chaos and perpetuate the constitutional balance that has served the country well for generations. The Court should let states do their job and restrain the activist impulses of the federal government.
Pat McCrory served as governor of North Carolina from 2013 to 2017. Mark Schweiker served as governor of Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2003.