The 2024 election season has brought its share of legal battles, many focusing on how states handle mail-in ballots. One such case is gaining national attention, as a conservative watchdog group has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Illinois’ practice of counting mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day.
This request for Supreme Court intervention comes after conflicting rulings in federal courts, underscoring the need for clarity in how post-election ballot counting is conducted.
The controversy centers on a provision in Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by the day of the election. A federal court previously upheld this practice, deeming it legal.
However, Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, argues that this practice violates federal law and invites potential voter fraud. The group is urging the Supreme Court to settle the matter, citing a conflicting federal court ruling in Mississippi that struck down a similar practice involving ballots counted within five days post-election.
Roy Horras, a leader in an Illinois election integrity group, highlighted the importance of uniformity across states. “The other case, in Mississippi, struck down the five-day rule. Somewhere between those two different appellate court jurisdictions, Judicial Watch is pushing it up to the Supreme Court to make a [uniform] judgment,” he explained.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has been vocal in opposing post-election ballot counting. He argues that the Illinois law undermines voter confidence and violates civil rights, emphasizing that federal law requires a consistent approach to election procedures.
“Counting ballots after Election Day is a great way to invite fraud and it undermines confidence in elections. It’s downright illegal,” Fitton stated.
He also pointed out that Illinois’ provision allows ballots to be counted even without a valid postmark, further fueling concerns about transparency and accuracy. “We have a lawsuit in Illinois where they count ballots up to 14 days after an election, even without a valid postmark,” he added.
The challenge to Illinois’ mail-in ballot provision initially began with Rep. Mike Bost, a Republican lawmaker. However, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed Bost’s challenge, ruling that he lacked standing to pursue the case.
In contrast, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Judicial Watch in the Mississippi case, striking down post-election ballot counting there. This split decision between circuits provides Judicial Watch with a stronger basis for its Supreme Court petition, according to legal experts.
“If two courts are hearing cases that seem to come together, then it’s more likely it’ll get pushed up to the Supreme Court,” said Horras.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case could have far-reaching implications for election integrity across the United States. Advocates for stricter election laws argue that allowing ballots to be counted well after Election Day creates opportunities for fraud and diminishes public trust in the electoral process.
Opponents of the Illinois provision also contend that extending the counting period undermines the principle of finality in elections, leaving outcomes in limbo for weeks and potentially disenfranchising voters who rely on timely results.
On the other hand, supporters of post-Election Day ballot counting maintain that it ensures all votes are counted, particularly those from overseas voters and individuals who rely on mail-in ballots due to health or accessibility concerns.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case, but the split rulings from federal courts increase the likelihood of review. A ruling from the high court could establish a nationwide standard for how and when mail-in ballots are counted, potentially resolving years of controversy surrounding the issue.
As the nation awaits a decision, the case highlights ongoing tensions in balancing election security and voter accessibility. For Illinois and other states with similar provisions, the Supreme Court’s ruling could bring much-needed clarity—or further intensify the debate.
With election integrity and public trust on the line, the stakes for this case could not be higher. Only time will tell if the Supreme Court will intervene to establish a uniform standard that addresses these pressing concerns.
