Some state officials say shifting mail ballot deadline will complicate plans for November elections

As he left the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices had just heard arguments Monday on whether to block states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar sent a text message to his staff 3,000 miles away.

His directive: Prepare to plan how to conduct the November midterm elections if the high court changes the rules when it issues its decision in June.

“The challenge is educating voters shortly before the election about how the election should be conducted,” said Aguilar, a Democrat. “It doesn’t happen overnight. Election planning happens well in advance.”

Election officials in Nevada and 13 other states that allow mail-in ballots to be mailed on Election Day but arrive days later to be counted focused their attention on Monday’s arguments, where conservative justices appeared skeptical of such grace periods. Fifteen other states provide grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters.

Mail-in ballots, also known as mail-in ballots, have been the source of conspiracy theories by President Donald Trump, who baselessly blames them for his defeat in the 2020 election. The Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party sued to overturn the Mississippi law allowing the counting of mail-in ballots postmarked on Election Day and arriving up to five days later, the case is currently being heard by the high court.

During the proceedings that lasted nearly two hours, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of six conservatives on the court’s vast majority, asked RNC lawyer Paul Clement whether a ruling issued during the court’s usual June period would run counter to a judicial principle of avoiding rulings that could disrupt upcoming elections.

“June would give them plenty of time,” Clement said of election administrators overseeing the November vote.

Tammy Patrick, a former Arizona election official and director of programs at the National Association of Election Officials Election Center, said that’s not the case. Most election offices have already printed flyers, signs and even ballot envelopes with current election deadlines for use in November. They would have to scramble to reprint this material, usually months or years in advance to save money.

“No one budgeted to reprint all of their teaching materials for midterms,” Patrick said. “This is where election administrators find themselves in a difficult situation.”

Monday’s case concerns only a fraction of the ballots counted during an election year.

In Nevada, for example, 98% of all mail-in ballots arrive before Election Day. Of those who arrive later, 95% land the next day. In Illinois, another state that allows late arrival of ballots, 106,000 ballots arrived within the state’s 14-day grace period in 2024, or just under 2% of the 5.5 million votes cast in that election.

The biggest challenge if the mail-in ballot deadline were to change would be informing voters that they face a tighter deadline, said Matt Dietrich, a spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Elections. He said the board would work with local election offices to get the message out.

In Alaska, with its enormous distances and isolated population centers, sometimes connected only by air, the state’s 10-day grace period provides a civic lifeline for some communities.

“The idea that the outcome of Watson v. RNC could reshape the election as soon as June is horrifying to me, as well as thousands of Alaskans who will have to rethink how they approach voting between now and Election Day,” said Michelle Sparck of the group Get Out the Native Vote.

Massachusetts holds its primary on Sept. 1 and therefore cannot send out its general election ballots early, said Debra O’Malley, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state’s office.

“You can’t turn it around on a dime,” O’Malley said, concerned that there is no concession on this timeline as to which route the high court might prefer.

The national association’s Patrick said election administrators are finding it increasingly difficult to adapt to sudden changes in election laws that followed Trump’s attacks on voting. In Texas last year, 3,000 pieces of election-related legislation were introduced in the state legislature, Patrick said, and election officials must prepare for any changes months in advance.

That’s why the high court formulated what it calls the “Purcell principle,” a name based on an earlier case in Arizona. In 2006, the court overturned a ruling that struck down a state voter ID law shortly before the election, ruling that judges should not change procedures too close to voting.

Patrick worked in the elections office in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous county, at the time.

“When the rules of engagement change too close to the election, you don’t have enough time to inform the electorate and make this policy change clear to them,” she said.

She fears such a last-minute change could happen if the court changes the rules for late mail-in ballots, noting that rural voters whose mail is delivered more slowly are at greatest risk of being disenfranchised.

Aguilar said he expects his office and Nevada’s local elections officials to roll with the punches, but he worries about a disruptive decision.

“Changing the rules of the game in the middle of competition serves no purpose,” he said.

___

Associated Press writers Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, and John O’Connor in Springfield, Illinois, contributed to this report.