The Supreme Court has delivered a pivotal decision that upholds the rights of states to count mail ballots postmarked by election day but received afterward. This ruling, which came as a surprise to many, has significant implications for the upcoming elections and voting systems in states like California.

The decision, which was 5-4, rejected a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other states that permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the three liberal justices to form the majority. This ruling avoids an election-year change in the voting rules and may bolster Democrats in the fall election.

Historical Context and Legal Precedents

Justice Barrett’s opinion highlighted the historical context of American elections, noting that states have often followed different rules. She emphasized that Congress has allowed states to set their own rules for ballot receipt. Since the early 20th century, most states have allowed absentee ballots from residents who are away on election day. Today, roughly 30 states count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward.

The opinion also pointed out that Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots but had not done so. This may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late. More recently, states have turned to voting by mail, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact on California and Other States

California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has been a target of Republican attacks, but it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts. In 2026, more than 400,000 late-arriving ballots were counted, amounting to only 2.5% of the total. Election law experts attribute slow tallies to the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court’s decision cited federal law since 1845, which sets election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Voters were required to cast their ballots that day. The Republican National Committee and the Trump administration challenged a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late. Trump’s lawyers argued that federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

Reactions and Future Implications

California officials cheered the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it a win for voter participation and access. Governor Gavin Newsom stated that the ruling is a win for voters, plain and simple. He has previously said the state should be able to count ballots faster and has allocated funds for increased staffing, technology, and voter education.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber emphasized that the high court’s ruling is a win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy. She pledged to continue working to ensure every eligible Californian has the opportunity to be heard. Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, affirmed that the ruling ensures that ballots cast by election day will be counted if received within the legal timeframe.

Voting rights experts agree that California’s vote counting should and could be faster but disagree with the Trump administration’s efforts to impose election day deadlines. Rick Hasen, an election law expert, noted that the court’s decision was a symbolic loss for Trump but doesn’t appreciably change how long it takes to count ballots because late-arriving ballots were never the problem.

The California Voter Foundation recommended statewide adoption of programs to speed up the counting process, such as ‘sign, scan, and go’ programs and ballot curing programs. They also urged the state to invest in voter education campaigns and improving counting capacity and efficiency in county elections facilities.

President Trump called the high court’s decision a tremendous loss and advocated for the Save America Act, which would enforce new voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements and ban mail ballots except for military personnel and individuals with illnesses or disabilities. California leaders rejected these criticisms, stating that the attacks on mail ballots are baseless and an attempt to undermine elections in which Republicans are poised to lose.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized that states have been primarily responsible for regulating elections since the nation’s founding and that the Supreme Court has respected that authority. Senator Alex Padilla praised the high court for acknowledging that nothing in federal law prevents states from setting their own rules for ballot receipt.