The future of mail-in voting — in particular, the power of states like California to count votes that are mailed by Election Day but received afterward — will soon be in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
It’s the same court that overturned a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013 that required states and cities with histories of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal government approval before changing their election laws.
It’s also the court that ruled in 2019 that federal judges cannot interfere with partisan “gerrymandering,” the redrawing of election districts for political purposes. Another ruling in 2021 allowed Arizona to reject ballots that were delivered by someone other than the voter.
Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review
And the court’s conservative majority indicated at a recent hearing that they are likely to overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a ban on district lines that harm racial or ethnic minorities. Such a ruling could affect multiple congressional districts in California that were drawn to enhance minority representation, and it’s not clear whether the state could preserve those districts by passing its own laws.
But the case that the justices are about to hear may have a different outcome. Though the advocates divide mostly along partisan lines — counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is favored by Democratic Party leaders and opposed by Republican leaders, including President Donald Trump — more than 30% of American voters cast their ballots by mail in 2024, nearly as many of them Republicans as Democrats.
And Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively on election law issues, says the court may have signaled its intentions by agreeing to review the case after a federal appeals court in New Orleans, in a ruling by three judges appointed by Trump, said mailed ballots can be counted only if they arrive by Election Day.
“Often the court will take a case to reverse” the lower-court ruling, which would have remained in effect if the court had denied review, Hasen said in an interview. “The most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court says states can decide to accept late-arriving ballots.”
Guess it is time for voters to take responsibility for voting just before and on election day.
Now there is an interesting concept. Personal responsibility and walking away from the nanny state.
Now it is time to have a valid ID with a picture to cast your ballot.
You know like Mexico!