Nearly a week after Los Angeles held its mayoral primary, residents still did not know whether Spencer Pratt or Nithya Raman would advance to a November runoff against incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. Ballots were still trickling in, and still being counted, under a California law that accepts mail-in votes arriving days after Election Day, so long as the envelope bears the right postmark.
That kind of delay may soon be unconstitutional. A pending U.S. Supreme Court case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, could shut down the practice nationwide. The justices heard oral arguments in March. A decision is expected this month, before the court's summer recess.
The case originates in Mississippi, but its reach extends to at least 14 states, plus California, New York, Texas, and the District of Columbia, that allow mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted if postmarked on time. Roughly 30 states maintain some form of grace period for absentee ballots cast by military personnel or U.S. citizens living abroad. A broad ruling could reshape how every one of those jurisdictions handles its elections.
The Republican National Committee's case rests on a straightforward reading of federal law. A federal statute defines Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The RNC argues that ballots received after that date should not be counted, period, regardless of when they were mailed.
RNC Chairman Joe Gruters framed the Los Angeles mess as Exhibit A. As the New York Post reported, Gruters told the paper the situation in California was indefensible.
"What's happening in California is a Democrat failure on full display. Nearly a week after the primary, it is completely unacceptable ballots are still being counted. That's why the RNC is aggressively fighting in the Supreme Court to stop ballots received after Election Day from being counted. Americans deserve timely election results they can trust."
The RNC also launched a tracking website to record how long it takes for all ballots to be counted, a move designed to put a public spotlight on the delays voters are forced to endure.
Oral arguments offered clues about where the court may land, though the outcome remains uncertain. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing in support of the RNC's position, put the principle plainly.
"There could be a process where ballots are being received earlier, but that ballot box has to close on Election Day."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed defenders of the grace-period practice with pointed questions. She asked, "Why is that permissible?", referring to counting ballots that arrive after the statutory Election Day. Barrett also challenged the historical argument for late-arriving ballots, asking: "If we're just going to say historically it just needs to look like it always looked, how come those features fall out?"
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared similarly skeptical, telling the grace-period defenders: "Maybe you're not saying anything other than, well, that's different."
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch appeared more sympathetic to arguments in favor of restoring confidence in the electoral process. On the other side, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared more skeptical of the RNC's position.
Kagan voiced the liberal bloc's concern most directly:
"It just seems inconceivable that on the basis of this kind of evidence, we would reject these practices that are so entrenched in 30 states."
That framing, "entrenched", is itself telling. The fact that a practice has spread across 30 states does not make it constitutional. Federal law says what it says. And the question before the court is whether state election officials have been quietly overriding it for years.
The Los Angeles mayoral race gave the country a live demonstration of what delayed ballot counts look like in practice. Days after voters went to the polls, the city still could not say who finished second. Pratt and Raman remained locked in limbo. The winner of that contest would face Mayor Karen Bass in November, but nobody could say who it was.
President Trump weighed in on Truth Social on Monday, posting: "Not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. 3rd World Nation. Rigged Elections!" He added a second post referencing another race: "Now they'll be working on great guy Steve Hilton. Won't have results for, possibly, TWO WEEKS, according to officials."
Whether or not one shares Trump's characterization, the underlying frustration is real and widely felt. When a major American city cannot produce election results for a week, or potentially two, something has gone wrong. The system is not serving voters. It is testing their patience and eroding their confidence.
Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin has called the RNC's Supreme Court case part of the GOP's "relentless assault on mail-in voting." That framing treats any effort to enforce the statutory Election Day deadline as voter suppression.
But the RNC is not arguing against mail-in voting itself. The argument is about when those ballots must arrive. Voters can still request a mail ballot, fill it out at the kitchen table, and drop it in the mail, they just need to do it in time for it to reach election officials by Election Day, the same day in-person voters cast their ballots.
Federal election law already provides flexibility to modify the voting period under extraordinary circumstances. The question is whether a permanent, open-ended grace period, allowing ballots to drift in for five days after the election, fits within the statute or contradicts it.
The politics of mail-in balloting have been charged since 2020, when Trump and Republicans highlighted uncertainties about mail-in ballot tallies as evidence the process was not fair. Trump's former attorney general, Bill Barr, said there "wasn't evidence of fraud widespread enough" to alter the 2020 outcome. Dozens of court cases did not produce rulings that shifted ballot tallies to deny Joe Biden's victory.
But the legal question in Watson v. Republican National Committee is distinct from the 2020 fraud debate. This case is about the plain text of a federal statute and whether states can extend the window for receiving ballots beyond what Congress set. You do not need to believe the 2020 election was stolen to believe that Election Day should mean Election Day.
Since Trump's return to the White House, the Department of Justice has been investigating some aspects of the election that took place in Georgia. The details of that investigation remain unclear.
If the Supreme Court sides with the RNC, the immediate effect would be felt in every state that currently accepts late-arriving mail ballots. At least 14 states plus California, New York, Texas, and the District of Columbia would need to change their procedures. The roughly 30 states with grace periods for military and overseas voters could also face new constraints, depending on how broadly the court writes its opinion.
For California, the impact would be direct and significant. The state's practice of counting ballots that arrive days after Election Day is a major reason its results take so long to finalize. End the practice, and results come faster. Voters get answers on election night, or close to it, instead of waiting a week or more while confidence drains away.
The decision is expected before the justices leave for summer recess. Based on the oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared receptive to the RNC's statutory reading, while the three liberal justices pushed back hard. The outcome likely hinges on how Barrett and Roberts frame the historical question, whether longstanding state practice can override the plain meaning of federal law.
Americans manage to file their taxes by April 15. They manage to register their cars before the tags expire. The idea that a ballot must arrive by Election Day is not a radical proposition. It is the most basic expectation a self-governing people can set, and it should not take the Supreme Court to enforce it.
