Truthout74%
To Trump’s Chagrin, Supreme Court Narrowly Protects Voting by Mail 21%
By Marjorie Cohn0%
6/30/2026, 7:27:21 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,386 faulty-reasoning hits from 904 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.3% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,282 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.
With the 2026 midterm elections just four months away, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by election day and received within five days thereafter.
The court’s 5-4 ruling in *Watson v.
Republican National Committee* leaves in place voting procedures in several states across the country.
“Good news rarely comes out of this Supreme Court, but [this] ruling is a win for our democracy,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/29/supreme-court-rules-mail-in-ballots-arriving-after-election-day-can-be-counted/">told</a> the *Washington Post*.
Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón praised the decision because voters “shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”
Roughly <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf">30 states</a>, including Mississippi, allow the counting of mail-in ballots if they are mailed by Election Day but received later.
As the <a href="https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/amicus-brief-of-lawyers-committee-for-civil-rights-under-law-et-al.pdf">amicus brief</a> filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the NAACP, and other groups explains: “A<a href="https://www.statesunited.org/%20resources/americans-vote-by-mail-2024/#section-3" rel="noreferrer noopener"> study</a> of the 2024 election found that, in 32 states, absentee voting accounted for approximately 31 percent of votes cast, with nearly 2 million Black voters, nearly 3 million Asian voters, and over 4 million Hispanic voters in those states relying on mail-in voting to participate in the election.”
Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, it would have upended voting in the midterm elections.
Voting has been ongoing in several places around the country.
Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
The Elections Clause of the Constitution empowers state legislatures to “prescrib[e]” the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” congressional elections and Congress can “override” most of those choices.
But Barrett notes that the “responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections” belongs to the states.
Moreover, the counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots does not conflict with federal law, which establishes “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November” as “election day,” Barrett wrote.
She noted that “the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day.
That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi.
But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”
Thus, “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” Barrett affirmed.
In a dissenting opinion joined by Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito argued that “from this Nation’s founding until the last few decades of the 20th century — a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes — having an ‘election’ on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day.”
Alito concluded, “Because federal law requires that the election occur on election day, it preempts Mississippi’s statute.”
Alito decried the majority decision for “leav[ing] open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”
Barrett responded that “election fraud and its appearances are serious issues,” but “they must be addressed through the democratic process.”
These are “policy arguments” that “are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.”
## Trump Calls the Ruling a “Tremendous Loss”
The practice of voting by mail is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/29/supreme-court-rules-mail-in-ballots-arriving-after-election-day-can-be-counted/">more prevalent</a> in Democratic-leaning states.
Donald Trump opposes mail-in voting and continues to falsely claim that it results in fraud and contributed to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
He unsuccessfully called on states to stop counting mail ballots during that election.
“Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating,” Trump <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/us/politics/trump-mail-in-voting-florida.html">declared</a> in March.
“I call it mail-in cheating, and we got to do something about it all.”
But when confronted with his own mail ballot cast in a special election in Florida, he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/us/politics/trump-mail-in-voting-florida.html">replied</a>, “I’m president,” “I couldn’t be there [in Florida],” and “I had a lot of different things” to do.
In a <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116834002761429397">post on his social media</a> platform, Trump called the court’s ruling in *Watson* a “tremendous loss.”
He then implored Congress to pass the Save America Act, while engaging in shameless redbaiting.
Trump is holding a landmark bipartisan housing bill hostage to passage of the “SAVE” Act, which would erect obstacles to voting, including voter ID, proof of citizenship, and abolition of most mail-in balloting.
On June 25, U.S.
District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts <a href="https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/UECO35A/State_of_California_et_al_v_Trump_et_al__madce-26-11581__0191.0.pdf">rejected</a> Trump’s attempt to alter federal election procedures with his March <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/us/politics/trump-mail-in-ballots-voting-executive-order.html?
eafs_enabled=false">executive order</a>, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/24/us/politics/trump-lists-noncitizens-states.html">citizen lists</a> to help determine voter eligibility.
His order enlisted the U.S.
Postal Service to verify voters based on lists provided by states.
Talwani called Trump’s attempt to use federal oversight of the Postal Service to regulate mail voting “unlawful, null, and void.”
She wrote that “the Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone,” and thus “the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State.”
She added, with emphasis, “The Constitution *does not* grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
Trump will almost certainly appeal Talwani’s ruling.
It may be affirmed if it reaches the Supreme Court, judging from the court’s decision in *Watson*.
But the high court is closely divided, and it would take just one vote to flip and uphold Trump’s executive order.
Stay tuned.
Speakers
5speakers36%attributed speech583writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageDerrick Johnson
27 attributed words8.4% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
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.