Supreme Court Allows Late Receipt Of Ballots During Elections
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5–4 to uphold a Mississippi law providing that absentee ballots do not have to be received by Election Day – and that states may count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward.
The ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee reverses the Fifth Circuit, which had sided with the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party. It leaves in place the ballot receipt practices of roughly 30 states and puts Congress, not the Court, on the hook if anyone wants a nationally uniform receipt deadline.
The Case
Mississippi lets certain residents – including college students away from home, senior citizens, and others – vote by absentee ballot. They can mail their ballots or send them by common carrier. The deadline: ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the registrar no more than five business days afterward.
The RNC argued that the three federal Election Day statutes – governing presidential electors, House members, and senators – use the word “election” to mean two things at once: ballot casting and ballot receipt. So when Congress set a day for the “election,” the RNC argued, it also set a receipt deadline. The Fifth Circuit agreed. The district court had not.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett framed the question at the outset: does counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later violate the federal statutes?
Barrett’s argument runs on three tracks: text, statutory context, and constitutional structure.
On text, “election” has always meant the act of choosing. Webster’s 1869 dictionary defines it as “[t]he act of choosing a person to fill an office.” The Court’s own precedent in United States v. Classic (1941) called an election “no more and no less than the expression by qualified electors of their choice of candidates.” That choice, Barrett writes, is made when voting is complete – not when ballots land on a registrar’s desk. The statutes set when the people vote, and says nothing about when the mail arrives.
The 2022 amendment to the presidential Election Day statute reinforces this point. When Congress inserted the phrase “election day” and defined it, it tied the definition to “the period of voting” – not the period of receipt. That is the act Congress was governing.
The Electoral College has always separated the act of voting from the act of transmission. Electors “give their Votes” on a uniform day and then “transmit” those votes to the seat of government. The Constitution mandates that the voting day be uniform; it says nothing about the day of receipt. The federal Election Day statutes follow the same architecture. As Barrett closes the majority opinion: “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.”
The Dissent Comes Out Swinging
In a scathing dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that an “election” is a collective act, not an individual one. The electorate does not express its choice until the full collection of ballots is in official custody. Until that moment, the choice is not made – it is still in transit, still subject to recall, and still incomplete. Receipt is therefore part of the election, not merely an administrative matter.
He cited two centuries of practice to support that view: from the founding through most of the 20th century, Election Day was the day ballots were collected. Even during the Civil War, when states had every logistical incentive to extend receipt deadlines for soldiers at the front, none did. Alito finds it implausible – a “delicately put understatement,” he says, borrowing the majority’s own phrase – that extending receipt deadlines simply never occurred to Civil War-era legislatures as an option. In short, he argues, they understood federal law to require receipt by Election Day.
Alito also cites Foster v. Love (1997) – the Court’s only prior interpretation of the Election Day statutes – which defined “election” as the “combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder.” If officials receiving ballots is part of that “combined action,” then officials receiving ballots must occur on Election Day. The majority, Alito argues, quietly reads the “officials” half of that formula out of the statute.
And he raises a practical alarm: what is the outer limit of today’s holding? Mississippi uses a five-day window. Washington state allows receipt up to 21 days after Election Day. The majority’s reasoning sets no federal floor. Could states eliminate receipt deadlines entirely? Could a voter hand a ballot to an Uber driver on Election Day for delivery weeks later?
What Happens Next
The immediate effect: Mississippi’s five-day post–Election Day receipt window survives. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling is reversed and remanded.
The broader effect: the roughly 30 states that already count ballots postmarked by Election Day and received afterward are now on solid federal legal footing. No federal preemption argument runs against them under today’s ruling.
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price subsidising their life by livestreaming
Venezuela Fury and her husband Noah Price look to be making their own way in the world by raking it in from their lucrative social media accounts.
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury, 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year.
Since getting married and moving in together the couple have been earning thousands of pounds a month, livestreaming their life as newlyweds in their static caravan in the East Riding of Yorkshire.
And fans can't get enough of their regular life updates on TikTok and Kick, which have proved to be very profitable for the pair.
They look to be supporting themselves after Noah denied that he was given £5million by Venezuela's family as a wedding gift.
Despite his wife's huge family wealth, an estimated combined £160 million, Noah recently told his Kick followers that he 'pays for everything' for the couple.
Making light of the claims about Venezuela's millionaire financial status, Noah said: 'I actually pay for everything unfortunately. You'd expect the millionaire to pay for it wouldn't you.'
Venezuela Fury and Noah Price are earning thousands livestreaming their caravan life - after her new groom insisted he pays all the bills and denied he had £5m handout from her dad
The influencer daughter of Tyson and Paris Fury , 16, has become an internet sensation after tying the knot with her husband Noah, 19, earlier this year
Venezuela then asked their fans: 'Do you think I am a millionaire?'
Noah joked: 'She isn't a secret millionaire guys', before she broke into song and sang: 'But I live like a millionaire!'
But it seems according to estimated calculations from their social media work, Noah and Venezuela can more than afford to support themselves.
Noah has been livestreaming on platforms such as Kick and TikTok, where viewers can send paid gifts or donations.
He was previously encouraging viewers to send gifts on his honeymoon during livestreams, suggesting this is one revenue stream.
Both Noah and Venezuela have built substantial followings on Instagram and TikTok. They can potentially earn money through sponsored posts, brand collaborations, affiliate links and creator payouts.
Kick allows its creators to take home 95 per cent of the £4.99 subscription cost that fans pay.
Streamers keep 100 per cent of direct tips and donations, minus minor standard payment processing fees.
It is unclear how many subscribers Noah currently has because this information is hidden, but he does have 7,200 followers which is publicly viewable.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million.
An industry insider has suggested Noah is making around £400 per video on TikTok, while Venezuela is likely to make £2,000 due to her following count of 1.3 million
In one video on their honeymoon, Noah asked his followers if they'd give them some more gifts now that they were married.
In a TikTok live viewed by 20,000 he said: 'Keep liking our videos people, keep sending gifts.'
After saying thank you to several of his followers he joked they should stick around on the livestream and 'watch Venezuela punch me in the mouth'.
The other half of the honeymooning couple said: 'I am, honestly!'
Noah previously confirmed that the pair don't share their finances after they were asked whether they have a shared bank account.
'She earns her money, I earn mine,' said Noah, as Venezuela joked: 'Yeah, what you gonna do about it.'
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'.
Meanwhile Venezuela is being eyed up by executives for a fly on the wall TV series.
Noah went on to debunk the rumour that Tyson gave him £5million when he tied the knot with his daughter as he insisted: 'No Tyson did not give me £5million'
Boasting 1.3 million TikTok followers, Venezuela is already entertaining fans with her honest musings and candid moments, from cooking to kitting out her and Noah's static caravan home.
And following the success of the Netflix series At Home With The Furys, it is no wonder bosses are wanting to draw on the Fury popularity.
A TV insider said: 'The couple are not A-list celebrities but everyone has become obsessed with their love story.
'People are genuinely intrigued by them. Whether it’s the fact they have married so young, Venezuela’s famous family or their gypsy lifestyle, they have the ‘X factor'.
'Several TV executives think a proper fly-on-the-wall series following their lives as newlyweds in the gypsy community would be fascinating,' they told The Sun.
It is thought Netflix would be likely to produce the series due to their already established relationship with the Furys.
Venezuela's representatives told The Daily Mail: 'We have many offers on the table regarding Venezuela which we are discussing.'
