By Katherine Szabo, Esq., Kevin Stawicki, Esq., and Nicole Toney

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on June 29, 2026 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent states from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received days later. The decision will almost certainly shield New Jersey, among other states such as California, Maryland, Illinois, Mississippi, and New York, from potential legal challenges about its use of a post-election grace period for mail-in ballots.

The decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling that invalidated a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if received within five business days of election day if they were postmarked by election day. The decision addresses fundamental questions about how far current federal law constrains state election procedures.

The Holding

The Court held that while federal election law requires voters to cast their ballots by Election Day, it does not require that election officials receive those ballots by Election Day. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that an “election” means “the expression of the electorate’s choice” — and that choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots arrive at county boards of elections.

The majority reasoned that there is no preemption of federal law by the Mississippi statute, and Mississippi voters may continue voting by mail, even if received by the registrar after election day, if they are postmarked by election day.

The federal election day statutes at issue, including the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), provide for the dates by which ballots must be cast, but are silent regarding a required date of receipt. The statutes define “election day” while referencing “voting,” which the majority understood to mean that voting was the action governed by the statutes. Accordingly, the Court found that state law may dictate when ballots must be received, even if federal law decides the date by which the vote must be cast.

Finally, the majority considered that the Constitution requires a day for electors to give their votes in elections, but it does not mandate a day of receipt. The Court pointed to precedent to distinguish between ballot casting and ballot receipt; an “election” means “the expression of the electorate’s choice,” which is made when voting is complete, not when ballots arrive at county boards of elections. Thus, election day statutes require the voters’ choices to be made by election day, but states may set the deadline for receipt.

How the Decision Impacts NJ Election Law

Watson will have substantial implications for New Jersey, which is one of 14 states that permits the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.

The decision validates the state’s ballot-receipt framework. New Jersey’s election laws are aligned with the Mississippi law that permits mail-in voting. Under N.J.S.A. 19:63-22(a), mail-in ballots with a postmark date on or before Election Day and received within 144 hours (six days) after poll closing are valid and must be canvassed. Ballots without a postmark but received within 48 hours after poll closing are also counted.

Watson removes any lingering uncertainty about this expansive approach to mail-in voting across the country, including in New Jersey. In New Jersey, voters may return mail ballots by mail, personal delivery, or through a designated bearer. New Jersey also provides secure ballot drop boxes in each county, available 24 hours a day with security-camera surveillance, where voters may deposit completed ballots until poll closing on Election Day.

Maintaining Legislative Latitude

The decision gives state lawmakers latitude to adjust ballot-receipt deadlines. The Supreme Court clarified that states retain authority to set these deadlines, subject only to the requirement that ballots be cast by Election Day.

This means the New Jersey Legislature could extend the receipt window beyond six days—or shorten it. The Court’s reasoning suggests that any timeframe is permissible so long as the ballot was cast (postmarked or deposited) by Election Day.

The Ballot-Recall Question

One unresolved issue in Watson may have relevance for New Jersey and other states with mail-in voting: the possibility of voters recalling ballots after Election Day. In the last pages of the opinion, the Court noted that plaintiffs raised a “late-breaking” argument about ballot recall. The U.S. Postal Service and some carriers allow senders to recall mail before delivery, and plaintiffs argued this means voters have not made a “final” choice until ballots reach election officials.

The Court declined to resolve this issue, noting that plaintiffs never independently challenged ballot-recall provisions and that Mississippi disputes whether its law permits recall. The majority held only that “post-election-day receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election-day statutes.”

New Jersey law does not explicitly address ballot recall. If a voter mails a ballot through USPS and then uses postal recall services to retrieve it after Election Day, it is unclear whether that ballot could still be counted if re-submitted or whether the recall itself would invalidate it. Watson leaves this question open, and future litigation could explore whether state law must affirmatively prohibit recall to ensure the electorate’s choice is “final” on Election Day.

Conclusion

Watson is a win for state flexibility in election administration and a validation of New Jersey’s mail voting framework. By holding that federal law sets a deadline for ballot casting but not ballot receipt, the Court preserved state authority to accommodate the realities of mail transit times and diverse voting methods. For New Jersey, it means confidence in existing procedures, freedom to adjust receipt windows, and reduced litigation risk.

As Justice Barrett concluded, “the election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.” In the absence of congressional action, states retain discretion — and with that discretion comes the duty to administer honest elections.

What is certain is that the debate over mail voting, ballot deadlines, and election integrity will continue in legislative chambers and public discourse in New Jersey and nationwide. But the legal foundation is now clearer: states may count ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as voters cast them on time.