The right's hypotheticals were a MAGA-infused morning. The decision on whether states can count ballots received after Election Day will likely come down to Roberts and Barrett.
Seems to me, the failure of the hypotheticals is this: mailing a ballot can only be accomplished by submitting it to an agency of the federal government. That is the same as handing it to an election official on or before or Election Day. Handing it to a neighbor or “recalling” the ballot cannot be accomplished after it has been submitted. Period. Counting a ballot in the possession of the US only if the government delivers it on time is lunacy.
Not really. Because there is always a deadline by which the mailed in ballot must be received. There is finality. Allowing mail in ballots while allowing for late arrival merely extends the vote counting period. Period. There is no preempti9n here. The hypotheticals are specious. And there is nothing to this case. The 5th Circuit is clearly in error
Exactly. It is just a step towards outlawing mail in ballots altogether. We vote on ballot and then it is the post office’s job to deliver them. Do they not trust post office? The Repubs could play lots of games with the mail to make sure ballots don’t arrive in time. They say early voting is ok but they lie. The argument that what if a sex offender gets outed after early voters have voted!?!? That was hysterical since we already know who the sex offenders and pedos are. Not saying there aren’t millions more…..
By all means, we must act to stop fraudulent ballots. Since the year 2000, they have amounted to anywhere from 0.00003 to 0.00008 of 1% ballots cast in the U.S. We must be vigilant!
This is really painful to read. What kind of country have we become, when our Supreme Court makes up such specious hypotheticals to toss around instead of looking at the key issue - or what should be the key issue, which is protecting the right of citizens to vote, and protecting the processes that make voting accessible to as many citizens as possible? The SC has gone down a really stupid rabbit hole. I pray they won't get stuck there.
What about ballots cast overseas by members of the US military and diplomatic corps and other USCitizens working or traveling abroad? They can’t possibly be both cast and received on Election Day.
Congress can write arbitrary and capricious election laws. That does not mean that states would not be bound to follow them. Silly federal laws such as Thomas and Gorsuch conjured up would then still pre-empt better, more reasonable and otherwise sound state laws. Tough luck. The fact that the shoe could be put on the other foot has nothing to do with this case. The hypothetical they pose being arbitrary and capricious might turn out to be constitutionally suspect for a number of reasons. But that would not mean they woukd be subject to challenge on grounds of preemption. Ci gress could rubber stamp them.
But the only thing under consideration in this case is the one Mississippi law in question, not a raft of other asinine hypothetical. And this entire line of questioning was an excursion in to irrelevance in support of an effort to sow confusion. It seems to me the Mississippi AG could perhaps have done a better job of pointing this out. Politely.
If you can’t allow the mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, would Donny have won last time? What R’s would have lost? Since we like to re-litigate every previous election…
Seems to me, the failure of the hypotheticals is this: mailing a ballot can only be accomplished by submitting it to an agency of the federal government. That is the same as handing it to an election official before or on Election Day. Handing it to a neighbor or “recalling” the ballot cannot be accomplished after it has been submitted. Period. Counting a ballot in the possession of the US only if the government delivers it on time is lunacy.
Oh, for pity's sake! Talk about creating a tempest in a teapot ...
This case is nothing more than a complaint about something that didn't happen; MS' amended their absentee balloting law in 2024 as follows:
23-15-637. (1) (a) Absentee ballots and applications received by mail, except for fax or electronically transmitted ballots as otherwise provided by Section 23-15-699 for UOCAVA ballots, must be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election; any received after such time shall be handled as provided in Section 23-15-647 and shall not be counted. See https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1400-1499/HB1400IN.htm.
I saw no mention of anyone bring up the traditional common law "Mailbox Rule" argument (that an item posted in the US Mail is considered received as of the postmark on the envelope). That should have ended most of these stupid, not-well-thought-out hypotheticals by the Gang that Can't Think Straight.
The argument about recalling a ballot (FedEx or UPS) is like arguing "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Stupid and de minimis on an election outcome.
The statute specifically sets a reasonable limit/deadline for when post-Election Day ballots can be counted. Has Gorsuch ever tried to recall a letter once its deposited with the USPS? Remember, a ballot is simply a single piece of 1st Class mail ... with ZERO tracking. [I worked for the USPS back in the day and had to recall mail for people; I failed much more often than I succeeded simply because of the volume, multiple pickup schedules, etc. Recalling a USPS 1st Class letter is not anywhere near as simple as recalling a FedEx or UPS Express letter -- not even close.]
Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch are off in La-La land; this case is very simple: Does federal law preempt MS counting ballot postmarked on Election Day but received up to 5 business days after Election Day ... PERIOD! I didn't see much, if any, argument of the law as it exists and applicable to this case before the Court. If anyone needs further proof that the MAGA 4 are carrying water for the Republican Party rather than the law of the land, these pathetic hypotheticals and arguments are clear, evidence of these Justices putting personal opinion and party politics ahead of the law as written.
What you’re seeing at SCOTUS isn’t confusion—it’s constitutional muscle being flexed. The conservative justices are hammering every angle because elections demand ironclad rules, not vibes and loopholes. Deadlines, custody of ballots, finality—this is the backbone of legitimacy. If voters don’t believe the rules are clear and consistently applied, the whole system starts to rot. These questions may sound tough, but that’s the job: break the framework now so it doesn’t break the country later. This isn’t partisan—it’s structural. Get it right, and confidence rises. Get it wrong, and every election becomes a permanent argument.
Agreed ... but, that's not what happened at the Court today. Most states will honor a post-Election Day ballot (where allowed by law) only if it bears a USPS postmark. UPS, FedEx and other private carriers do not issue postmarks; heck, a lot of their mail doesn't bear ANY mailing date on the label.
And, if they wanted to argue "the appearance of fraud" because the ballot arrived after Election Day (but, presumably not later than MS' specified 5 business days after Election Day), there's this other argument: the common law "mailbox rule." That rule states that a document or payment is considered "received" as of the postmark date on the exterior envelope -- problem of "the appearance of fraud" is solved.
The other hypotheticals are not in ANY state's laws, let alone MS' law, so this is just so much word salad smoke-and-mirror crap designed to deflect form the issues at hand ... and the law as written.
So, IMHO, the hypotheticals were just so much smoke-and-mirror BS, not a strenuous testing of the law.
Seems to me, the failure of the hypotheticals is this: mailing a ballot can only be accomplished by submitting it to an agency of the federal government. That is the same as handing it to an election official on or before or Election Day. Handing it to a neighbor or “recalling” the ballot cannot be accomplished after it has been submitted. Period. Counting a ballot in the possession of the US only if the government delivers it on time is lunacy.
Not really. Because there is always a deadline by which the mailed in ballot must be received. There is finality. Allowing mail in ballots while allowing for late arrival merely extends the vote counting period. Period. There is no preempti9n here. The hypotheticals are specious. And there is nothing to this case. The 5th Circuit is clearly in error
Exactly. It is just a step towards outlawing mail in ballots altogether. We vote on ballot and then it is the post office’s job to deliver them. Do they not trust post office? The Repubs could play lots of games with the mail to make sure ballots don’t arrive in time. They say early voting is ok but they lie. The argument that what if a sex offender gets outed after early voters have voted!?!? That was hysterical since we already know who the sex offenders and pedos are. Not saying there aren’t millions more…..
By all means, we must act to stop fraudulent ballots. Since the year 2000, they have amounted to anywhere from 0.00003 to 0.00008 of 1% ballots cast in the U.S. We must be vigilant!
Love the snark! But, you do know that math is not in the typical MAGA's skill set?
This is really painful to read. What kind of country have we become, when our Supreme Court makes up such specious hypotheticals to toss around instead of looking at the key issue - or what should be the key issue, which is protecting the right of citizens to vote, and protecting the processes that make voting accessible to as many citizens as possible? The SC has gone down a really stupid rabbit hole. I pray they won't get stuck there.
Elect stupid representatives to Congress, get stupid appointees.
Kinda like the unofficial rule that "No one in government can get paid more than a member of Congress."
Thomas is pretty disingenuous. SCOTUS has already ruled in Brnovich that your neighbor can’t hand in your ballot.
Dishonest sophists have always undermined basic justice and sound law. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh demonstrate this often.
Inaccurate arrogance — usually founded on flamboyant ignorance and greedy insecurity — is a distinguishing characteristic of inferior minds.
What about ballots cast overseas by members of the US military and diplomatic corps and other USCitizens working or traveling abroad? They can’t possibly be both cast and received on Election Day.
I guess very little (Kavanaugh) stops the SCOTUS Six from putting racism blatantly back into play. Another facet of Trump Brutalism.
I just don’t know how you can sit and listen to a hearing like this at our highest court and not gnash your teeth the entire time.
Congress can write arbitrary and capricious election laws. That does not mean that states would not be bound to follow them. Silly federal laws such as Thomas and Gorsuch conjured up would then still pre-empt better, more reasonable and otherwise sound state laws. Tough luck. The fact that the shoe could be put on the other foot has nothing to do with this case. The hypothetical they pose being arbitrary and capricious might turn out to be constitutionally suspect for a number of reasons. But that would not mean they woukd be subject to challenge on grounds of preemption. Ci gress could rubber stamp them.
But the only thing under consideration in this case is the one Mississippi law in question, not a raft of other asinine hypothetical. And this entire line of questioning was an excursion in to irrelevance in support of an effort to sow confusion. It seems to me the Mississippi AG could perhaps have done a better job of pointing this out. Politely.
Here’s a hypothetical for the Court:
If you can’t allow the mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, would Donny have won last time? What R’s would have lost? Since we like to re-litigate every previous election…
Sounds like a fun exercise!!
Seems to me, the failure of the hypotheticals is this: mailing a ballot can only be accomplished by submitting it to an agency of the federal government. That is the same as handing it to an election official before or on Election Day. Handing it to a neighbor or “recalling” the ballot cannot be accomplished after it has been submitted. Period. Counting a ballot in the possession of the US only if the government delivers it on time is lunacy.
Oh, for pity's sake! Talk about creating a tempest in a teapot ...
This case is nothing more than a complaint about something that didn't happen; MS' amended their absentee balloting law in 2024 as follows:
23-15-637. (1) (a) Absentee ballots and applications received by mail, except for fax or electronically transmitted ballots as otherwise provided by Section 23-15-699 for UOCAVA ballots, must be postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election; any received after such time shall be handled as provided in Section 23-15-647 and shall not be counted. See https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1400-1499/HB1400IN.htm.
I saw no mention of anyone bring up the traditional common law "Mailbox Rule" argument (that an item posted in the US Mail is considered received as of the postmark on the envelope). That should have ended most of these stupid, not-well-thought-out hypotheticals by the Gang that Can't Think Straight.
The argument about recalling a ballot (FedEx or UPS) is like arguing "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Stupid and de minimis on an election outcome.
The statute specifically sets a reasonable limit/deadline for when post-Election Day ballots can be counted. Has Gorsuch ever tried to recall a letter once its deposited with the USPS? Remember, a ballot is simply a single piece of 1st Class mail ... with ZERO tracking. [I worked for the USPS back in the day and had to recall mail for people; I failed much more often than I succeeded simply because of the volume, multiple pickup schedules, etc. Recalling a USPS 1st Class letter is not anywhere near as simple as recalling a FedEx or UPS Express letter -- not even close.]
Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch are off in La-La land; this case is very simple: Does federal law preempt MS counting ballot postmarked on Election Day but received up to 5 business days after Election Day ... PERIOD! I didn't see much, if any, argument of the law as it exists and applicable to this case before the Court. If anyone needs further proof that the MAGA 4 are carrying water for the Republican Party rather than the law of the land, these pathetic hypotheticals and arguments are clear, evidence of these Justices putting personal opinion and party politics ahead of the law as written.
Chis,
...maybe i have another challenge.... and the grease on the barn door is dripping into the hay.
What other new voting tools, in case the Save America Act doesn't pass, can this fedsoc ct bestow on their Pedophile King.
We are in this together. No Kings. Stop Iran War operation Epstein Fury. Peace.
Christopher and family
What you’re seeing at SCOTUS isn’t confusion—it’s constitutional muscle being flexed. The conservative justices are hammering every angle because elections demand ironclad rules, not vibes and loopholes. Deadlines, custody of ballots, finality—this is the backbone of legitimacy. If voters don’t believe the rules are clear and consistently applied, the whole system starts to rot. These questions may sound tough, but that’s the job: break the framework now so it doesn’t break the country later. This isn’t partisan—it’s structural. Get it right, and confidence rises. Get it wrong, and every election becomes a permanent argument.
Agreed ... but, that's not what happened at the Court today. Most states will honor a post-Election Day ballot (where allowed by law) only if it bears a USPS postmark. UPS, FedEx and other private carriers do not issue postmarks; heck, a lot of their mail doesn't bear ANY mailing date on the label.
And, if they wanted to argue "the appearance of fraud" because the ballot arrived after Election Day (but, presumably not later than MS' specified 5 business days after Election Day), there's this other argument: the common law "mailbox rule." That rule states that a document or payment is considered "received" as of the postmark date on the exterior envelope -- problem of "the appearance of fraud" is solved.
The other hypotheticals are not in ANY state's laws, let alone MS' law, so this is just so much word salad smoke-and-mirror crap designed to deflect form the issues at hand ... and the law as written.
So, IMHO, the hypotheticals were just so much smoke-and-mirror BS, not a strenuous testing of the law.
C