2026年3月23日 / 美国东部时间上午9:54 / CBS新闻
华盛顿—— 最高法院周一正在审理一起重大选举争议案，焦点在于联邦法律是否禁止各州计算那些在选举日后收到但邮戳日期在选举日当天或之前的邮寄选票。
本案被称为Watson诉共和党全国委员会（RNC），涉及密西西比州对迟到邮寄选票的截止期限，以及该州法律和其他13个州的类似措施是否与联邦法律相冲突。联邦法律规定，在某些年份，选举日为11月第一个星期一之后的星期二。
最高法院辩论之际，特朗普总统正推动终止邮寄投票（部分例外情况除外），而最高法院对本案的判决预计将在11月中期选举前数月作出。
全美50个州均要求选票必须在选举日当天标记并提交。但根据美国全国州议会会议的数据，14个州和哥伦比亚特区已制定所谓的“宽限期”，即如果选票在选举日当天或之前邮戳，但在之后收到，仍可计入。29个州和哥伦比亚特区允许至少部分军事和海外选票在选举日后收到的情况下仍可计入。
堪萨斯州、北达科他州、俄亥俄州和犹他州四个州去年通过法律，取消了宽限期，现在要求邮寄选票必须在选举日当天收到才能计入。
提交给最高法院的密西西比州法律允许邮寄选票在选举日后最多五天内收到且邮戳日期在选举日当天的情况下仍可计入。2024年，共和党全国委员会、该州共和党以及密西西比州自由党提起诉讼，质疑该州的选票接收截止日期。
原告辩称，19世纪制定的联邦法律规定总统和国会选举的统一日期，要求选票必须在选举日当天收到。共和党人声称，密西西比州的宽限期与这些联邦法律相冲突。
联邦地区法院支持了密西西比州的法律，裁定该法律并不与联邦选举日法律冲突，因为国会制定这些法律时，“选举”一词的普通含义是选民最终选择候选人的日期。
但美国第五巡回上诉法院推翻了这一裁决，裁定联邦法律优先于密西西比州的截止日期，因为“选举日”是选民必须投票并由州选举官员收到的日期。
第五巡回上诉法院的三名法官小组裁定：“虽然选举官员仍在接收选票，但选举仍在进行中：结果尚未确定，因为仍在收到活页选票。”
密西西比州官员向最高法院提起上诉，最高法院于11月同意裁定各州是否可以计入在选举日当天投票但在之后才被选举官员收到的选票。
共和党籍密西西比州国务卿迈克尔·沃森（Michael Watson）敦促最高法院维持该法律。在向最高法院提交的文件中，他辩称，他的州和其他设有选举日后选票接收截止日期的州做出了政策选择，这反映了美国的联邦制体系。宪法的选举条款赋予各州制定联邦选举规则的权力，州和地方各级办公室负责管理选举，尽管国会可以通过选举条例。
沃森和其他支持宽限期的人警告说，如果最高法院采纳第五巡回法院的规则，可能会危及29个接受选举日后选票的州的法律，包括军事和海外选民的选票。代表军人、军属和海外选民的多个组织联盟表示，有近400万现役军人和美国公民居住在国外，他们依赖邮寄选票投票。
沃森在向最高法院提交的文件中辩称，“选举”是联邦官员的选择，选民在标记和提交选票时就做出了这一选择。根据密西西比州法律，所有选民——无论亲自投票还是邮寄投票——都必须在选举日做出对候选人的“最终”选择。
他在最高法院的简报中写道：“就联邦选举日法律而言，密西西比州的选举官员可能在选举日后收到一些选票，这并不重要。只有投票行为对选举至关重要。”
但共和党全国委员会的律师敦促最高法院维持第五巡回法院裁定密西西比州法律无效的判决，辩称选举在投票结束时结束，而不是在选民做出选择时结束。他们在简报中辩称，“选举”一词指的是为联邦职位选择候选人的公开过程。
选举日包括选票的提交和接收，两者都必须在国会设定的日期结束。共和党人和密西西比州自由党还辩称，不同的选票接收截止日期的拼凑只会重复国会在19世纪设定统一选举日时试图解决的问题。
共和党全国委员会还警告说，允许官员计算选举后收到的选票的法律会引发欺诈行为，并造成欺诈的表象。
“在许多人看来，这些法律阻碍了选举的效率和公正性，”共和党全国委员会在一份声明中表示。
特朗普政府支持共和党人，并辩称根据联邦法律，各州不能计算在选举日之后收到的总统、参议院和众议院选举的选票。
司法部副部长D.约翰·索尔（D. John Sauer）在法庭之友简报中表示：“在为全国设定统一的‘选举日’时，国会规定了这些词的一贯要求：在选举日，投票箱必须关闭，所有选票必须在当天收到。”
关于密西西比州选票接收截止日期的案件预计将在6月底或7月初作出判决，这引发了担忧：如果最高法院推翻其宽限期，一些州的选举官员将在11月中期选举前数月仓促通知选民截止日期的变化。
Listen Live: Supreme Court hears arguments over late-arriving mail ballots
March 23, 2026 / 9:54 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday is hearing a major elections dispute involving whether federal law bars states from counting mail ballots that are postmarked by, but received after Election Day.
The case before the high court, known as Watson v. RNC, involves Mississippi’s deadline for late-arriving mail ballots and whether its law, as well as similar measures from 13 other states, conflicts with federal statutes that set Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in certain years.
Arguments are taking place as President Trump pushes to end mail voting, with some exceptions, and a decision in the case from the Supreme Court is expected to come months before the November midterm elections.
All 50 states require ballots to be marked and submitted by election day. But 14 states and the District of Columbia have enacted so-called grace periods, in which ballots that are postmarked by Election Day can be counted if they arrive after that day. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia allow at least some military and overseas ballots to be counted if they’re received after election day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Four states — Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio and Utah — passed laws last year eliminating grace periods and now require mail ballots to be received by Election Day in order to be counted.
Before the Supreme Court is Mississippi’s law, which allows mail ballots that are received up to five days after the election to be counted as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. In 2024, the Republican National Committee and the state GOP, as well as Mississippi’s Libertarian Party, filed lawsuits challenging the state’s ballot-receipt deadline.
The plaintiffs argued that federal statutes enacted in the 1800s that set a uniform day for the election for president and Congress require ballots to be received by Election Day. Mississippi’s grace period, the Republicans alleged, conflicts with those federal laws.
A federal district court upheld Mississippi’s law, finding it did not conflict with the federal Election Day- statutes because, when Congress enacted those laws, the ordinary meaning of “election” was the final choice of a candidate by the voter.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that decision and ruled that federal law trumps Mississippi’s deadline, since “election” day is the day by which ballots must be cast by voters and received by state election officials.
“While election officials are still receiving ballots, the election is ongoing: The result is not yet fixed, because live ballots are still being received,” a panel of three judges on the 5th Circuit found.
Mississippi officials appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed in November to decide whether states can count ballots that are cast by election day but received by election officials after that day.
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the law. In filings with the high court, he argued that his state and others with post-Election-Day ballot-receipt deadlines have made a policy choice, which reflects the nation’s system of federalism. The Constitution’s Elections Clause gives states the authority to set the rules for federal elections, and offices at the state and local levels oversee their administration, though Congress can pass election regulations.
Watson and others defending the grace periods have warned that if the Supreme Court adopts the 5th Circuit’s rule, it could jeopardize the laws of the 29 states that accept some ballots after election day, including from military and overseas voters. There are nearly 4 million servicemembers and U.S. citizens living abroad who rely on mail ballots to vote, according to a coalition of groups representing troops, military families and overseas voters.
In filings with the Supreme Court, Watson argued that an “election” is the choice of a federal officer, and voters make that choice when they mark and submit their ballots. Under Mississippi law, all voters — whether voting in-person or by mail — must make their “conclusive” choice of candidates for office by election day.
“It does not matter — as far as the federal election day statutes are concerned — that election officials in Mississippi may receive some ballots after election day,” he wrote in a Supreme Court brief. “Only ballot casting is essential to an election.”
But lawyers for the Republican National Committee urged the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit decision that invalidated Mississippi’s law, arguing that the election ends when the ballot box is closed, not when voters make their selection. The term “election,” they argued in a brief, refers to the public process of selecting candidates for federal office.
Election day encompasses the submission and receipt of ballots, and both must conclude on the date set by Congress, the Republicans and Libertarian Party of Mississippi said. They also argued that a patchwork of different ballot-receipt deadlines only replicates the problems Congress was trying to fix when it set a uniform day for the election in the 19th century.
The GOP also warned that the laws allowing officials to count late-arriving ballots invites fraud and creates the appearance of fraud.
“In the eyes of many, they have hampered the efficiency and integrity of elections,” the RNC argued.
Claims about fraud through mail voting have been perpetuated and amplified by Mr. Trump, though instances of mail-voting fraud are rare. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, according to elections experts.
The Trump administration is backing the GOP in the case and has argued that under federal law, states cannot count ballots in elections for president, the Senate and House that it receives after Election Day.
“[I]n setting a uniform ‘election day’ for the Nation, Congress mandated what those words have always required: On election day, the ballot box must close, and every vote must have been received,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.
A decision in the case involving Mississippi’s ballot-receipt deadline is expected to come by the end of June or early July, raising concerns that if the Supreme Court strikes down its grace period, election officials in some states will be left scrambling to inform voters about changed deadlines months before the November midterm elections.
