Supreme Court Rules Mail-In Ballots Can Be Counted After Election Day 55%

By Anthony Iafrate0%

6/29/2026, 2:20:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 1,421 faulty-reasoning hits from 770 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,958 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.50% of the article peer group.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law allows states to count non-military mail-in ballots received after Election Day. 
In a 5-4 ruling written by Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held that “federal election-day statutes” do not “preempt” Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to count if received up to five days later. 
Barrett was joined by the Court’s three liberals as well as Chief Justice John Roberts. 
“As we have said before, the federal election-day statutes ‘simply regulate the time of the election,'” Barrett wrote in the Court’s opinion. 
“By setting the day for the ‘election,’ these statutes set the day when the electorate must make its choice. 
It is a ‘fundamental canon of statutory construction that words generally should be interpreted as taking their ordinary meaning at the time Congress enacted the statute.'" 
“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett’s opinion concluded. 
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court’s decision “is inconsistent with the terms of the election-day statutes, contemporary election-law principles, two centuries of historical practice, and the case law on the question presented." 
“It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts,” he added. 
“And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government.” 
Mississippi and 13 other states currently allow non-military mail-in ballots received after polls close to be tabulated as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. 
These states have ballot receipt deadlines ranging from the day after Election Day in Texas to three weeks after Election Day in Washington state. 
(RELATED: These 14 States Allow Mail-In Ballots To Count Even After Election Day  For Now) 
Election Day has been recognized across the United States as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November since Congress passed a law establishing that date in 1845. 
Law professor Jonathan Turley called the 5-4 ruling in favor of Mississippi’s law a “surprise,” in a post to X shortly after the decision dropped. 
He added that it is a “Significant win for the Democrats in states like California,” a universal mail-in voting state that allows ballots received up to one week after Election Day to count. 
A March poll conducted by CRC Research for the Honest Elections Project (HEP) found that 83% of U.S. likely voters agree that mail-in ballots should not be received after Election Day. 
Moreover, 78% of all voters including 68% of Democrats polled indicated that setting Election Day as the deadline for mail-in ballots “makes elections more secure.” 
“Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court is deeply disappointing and misses the mark,” Jason Snead, Executive Director of HEP Action told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. 
“Federal law is clear: all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted. 
The Court missed a major opportunity to reinforce election integrity and instead sides with California-style chaos.” 
“As Justice Alito makes clear in his dissent, watching ballots trickle in after Election Day and flip races does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government,” Snead added. 
“Honest Elections Project will continue to fight cross the country for state laws that put a stop to late ballots and ensure that voting ends on Election Day.” 
During March oral arguments, some justices voiced skepticism about states allowing mail-in ballots to be accepted days or weeks after polls close. 
“If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. 
“If I have nothing more to look at than the phrase ‘Election Day,’ I think, this is the day in which everything is going to take place,” Justice Samuel Alito said during oral arguments, noting that Election Day, Labor Day and Memorial Day are “all particular days.” 
Kavanaugh joined Alito’s dissent in part. 
The ruling comes as President Donald Trump is pushing for the Republican-controlled U.S. 
Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, an election integrity bill that would require voter ID nationwide and proof of citizenship for voter registration. 
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. 
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. 
For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Anthony Iafrate: 2.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 6.1%Anthony Iafrate: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 7.8%Anthony Iafrate: 2.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 6.1%Anthony Iafrate: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Anthony Iafrate: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias1.9%This article: 16.0%Anthony Iafrate: 11.9%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect16.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.5%Anthony Iafrate: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Anthony Iafrate: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias15.1%This article: 17.5%Anthony Iafrate: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Anthony Iafrate: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Anthony Iafrate: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 3.8%Anthony Iafrate: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Anthony Iafrate: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 2.1%Anthony Iafrate: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 3.5%Anthony Iafrate: 1.9%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope3.5%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Anthony Iafrate: 3.4%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Anthony Iafrate: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 12.6%Anthony Iafrate: 9.3%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion12.6%This article: 7.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question7.0%This article: 1.7%Anthony Iafrate: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Anthony Iafrate: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.8%Anthony Iafrate: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 2.9%Anthony Iafrate: 2.9%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 3.8%Anthony Iafrate: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 3.6%Anthony Iafrate: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Anthony Iafrate: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Anthony Iafrate: 5.4%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.1%This article: 7.4%Anthony Iafrate: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.4%

770 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers61%attributed speech300writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 22 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 19 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAmy Coney Barrett • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 37 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Turley • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Turley • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJason Snead • 29 words • 100.0% coverageJason Snead • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJason Snead • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJason Snead • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJason Snead • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBrett Kavanaugh • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 30 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDaily Caller News Foundation • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jason Snead

100%flagged-word coverage
119 attributed words25% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+24.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jason Snead: 24.4%24.4%Indoctrination+23.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jason Snead: 23.5%23.5%Unattributed Quote+12.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jason Snead: 12.6%12.6%Politically Right Leaning -8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Jason Snead: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.