Why MS is appealing mail-in absentee ballot case to US Supreme Court. What to know
State officials are seeking to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down Mississippi's law allowing the receival and counting of mail-in absentee ballots five days after federal election day to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If taken up by the country's highest court, the ruling could set in stone whether states can allow for the counting of mail-in absentee ballots in future federal elections. This does not affect state or local elections.
On April 18, attorneys representing Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson and state Attorney General Lynn Fitch filed a motion requesting a pause of its case with the U.S. Court for the Southern District for a petition to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The state has until June 2 to actually file the petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
In response, U.S. Judge Louis Guirola ordered the district court's case be frozen until all action at the U.S. Supreme Court level is concluded.
In January 2024, the National Republican Committee, as well as the state Republican Party and others filed the lawsuit challenging the state's law allowing ballots to be received by election workers and counted up to five days after the actual election day during federal elections.
Similar case in Nevada: RNC case against MS mail-in ballot law pending ruling. See what state ruled in similar case
Later that year, Guirola ruled in favor of the state and allowed the law to stay in place. However, the state GOP appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and won. The state asked the court to rehear the case but was denied earlier this year.
Throughout the suit, the state has argued it has the right, via its own laws, to regulate and manage certain aspects of federal elections, such as receiving mail-in ballots and counting them after election day. The GOP has said in several filings that the state violated federal law and only Congress can set those election parameters.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case on, the ruling could impact whether other states, such as Nevada and Pennsylvania, with similar laws can allow for the counting of mail-in absentee ballots after election day, said Rob McDuff, an attorney for the Mississippi Center for Justice. The center is representing several defendants who intervened in the case.
"It's an important issue in terms of future presidential elections, as well as (other federal elections)," McDuff said.
Mississippi's next federal elections will be in 2026 when all four congressmen run for reelection, as will Cindy Hyde Smith, one of the state's two U.S. senators.
Early voting in Mississippi: Early voting dies in MS Legislature. Concerns arose over new voting program, likely veto
That fact may coax the supreme court judges into hearing the case, University of Richmond professor and Williams Chair of Law Carl Tobias said.
However, it could still be a long shot given the Fifth Circuit's prior ruling and the fact that of thousands of petitions filed every year, only about 50 or so are heard by the court.
"The more states that are impacted by the case … that may pique the interest of the court," Tobias said.
Grant McLaughlin covers state government for the Clarion Ledger. He can be reached at gmclaughlin@gannett.com or 972-571-2335.
This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: US Supreme Court may hear MS case on mail-in absentee ballot counting
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Far be it from me to judge anyone enjoying the feud between Donald Trump and his benefactor Elon Musk over Trump's signature legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But in the conflict between the president and the world's richest man, the public is the most likely loser. Four days ago, Musk described the bill as 'disgusting,' 'pork-filled,' and an 'abomination.' He also suggested that Trump was ungrateful, claiming that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without all the money he had spent supporting GOP candidates. Trump fired back in a post on his network, Truth Social, saying, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk then accused Trump of being in 'the Epstein files,' referring to the late financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, whom both men have ties to. Musk later deleted that post, as well as another calling for Trump's impeachment. If all this seems painfully stupid, it is, and it was all made possible by the erosion of American democracy. The underlying issues, however, are significant despite the surreal nature of the exchange. As it happens, Trump and Musk's dueling criticisms are each, in their own ways, at least partially valid. The bill is an abomination, although not because it's 'pork-filled.' And much of Musk's wealth does come from the federal government, which he has spent the past few months trying to dismantle while preserving his own subsidies. According to Axios, among other things, Musk was angry that the bill cuts the electric-vehicle tax credit, which will hurt the bottom line of his electric-car company, Tesla. But neither billionaire—one the president of the United States and the other a major financial benefactor to the president's party—opposes the bill for what makes it a monstrosity: that it redistributes taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country by slashing benefits for the middle class, the poor, and everyone in between. The ability of a few wealthy people to manipulate the system to this extent—leaving two tycoons who possess the emotional register of toddlers with the power to impoverish most of the country, to their own benefit, speaks ill of the health of American democracy, regardless of the outcome. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would make the largest cuts to food assistance for the poor in history, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eliminating $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a time when inflation is still straining family budgets. Some 15 million Americans would become uninsured because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, also the largest reductions to that program in history, and because of cuts to the Affordable Care Act. The CBPP estimates that about '22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether.' Not everyone would suffer, however, as the bill does offer significant tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Whatever meager benefits there are to everyone else would likely be eaten up by the increase in the cost of food and health care caused by the benefit cuts. [Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs] For all the insults flying between Trump and Musk, they are both fine with taking from those who have little and giving generously to those who have more than they could ever need. For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the 'weaponization' of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such. Yet the one bridge that connects Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush to Donald Trump is slashing public services while showering tax cuts on the rich. This is the Republican Party's most sacred, fundamental value, the one it almost never betrays. Whatever else Trump and Musk may fight about, they are faithful to that. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Paxton presents an opportunity in Texas — if Democrats can take advantage of it
Texas Republicans' messy Senate primary is giving Democrats hope that they could finally have an opening to wedge into higher office in the red state — for real this time. But a potential pileup of candidates as the party sees renewed interest in the race could spoil their chances of finally flipping the Lone Star State. Attorney General Ken Paxton, who endured multiple scandals while in office, is leading in the polls against longtime incumbent GOP Sen. John Cornyn. A Paxton victory could divide Republicans and potentially even sway some to support a Democrat. Nearly two dozen Texas Democratic members of Congress, party leaders and strategists described a sense of opportunity, but were divided on the type of candidate to run. Some argued for a progressive, others thought a more centrist candidate could gain traction, while others weren't even sure Democrats could pull off a win. There are calls both for new blood and for a proven candidate. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) just wants a candidate who'd 'sound like a Texas Democrat' and could buck national trends.. 'I think this is just a great opportunity for Democrats, and we don't need to blow it,' said Veasey, who said he isn't interested in a run. Flipping Texas is a perennial Democratic dream, but core constituencies have moved further to the right, and Democrats haven't held a Senate seat in the state since 1993. The state's expensive media markets require fundraising prowess. That leaves the party with a crowded field of interested candidates, but none with a proven track record of winning statewide. Plenty of Democrats are skeptical they'd even win against Paxton, whose nomination isn't guaranteed. 'I am hopeful that [Cornyn] could pull it off, because if you're going to have a Republican in Texas, why not let it be John,' said Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas). Democrats acknowledge they'd stand little chance of unseating Cornyn, who's been a fixture in Texas politics for decades. But Paxton, a Trump loyalist who was impeached by the Republican-held Texas House (and acquitted in the impeachment trial) and faced a federal corruption investigation, has been a polarizing figure in the Texas GOP, and, Democrats hope, an opponent they could defeat. 'Democrats are foaming at the mouth about Ken Paxton,' said Katherine Fischer, deputy executive director of Texas Majority PAC, which works to elect Democrats statewide. 'We're seeing in local elections in Texas and across the country there is already a backlash against Trump and against MAGA. Ken Paxton is about as MAGA as you can get.' First they need to find a viable Senate candidate. After coming up short in previous cycles, many Texas Democrats are hesitant about supporting former Reps. Colin Allred and Beto O'Rourke, both of whom have signaled their interest in another bid. O'Rourke, who unsuccessfully ran statewide in 2018 and 2022, has been hosting packed town halls across the state. Allred, who lost to Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024 by about 8.5 percentage points, has said he was 'seriously considering' another run. 'Well, [Allred and O'Rourke are] both talking about it, and I hope that they will resolve that one person's running and not all,' said Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Allred's failed campaign has left a bad taste among some Texans, especially progressives, who believe he did not run aggressively or do enough grassroots outreach. And while O'Rourke is still a favorite son in Texas Democratic circles, many of those supporters believe he will be haunted by his position against assault rifles in a gun-loving state. 'They both tried it, and especially the last time, the margins were pretty wide,' said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas). 'And I think those are all things to consider.' Joel Montfort, a Texas-based Democratic strategist, agreed: 'Putting the same two guys up over and over, I don't think that's going to deliver us.' That's why some say it's time to try something new. Texas Democrats have talked up potential bids by state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic seminarian and frequently viral member who helped prosecute Paxton during his impeachment. Talarico told POLITICO: 'I'm having conversations about how I can best serve Texas, and that includes the Senate race. But in my training as a pastor, you learn the importance of listening and how hard it is to truly listen. With so much at stake for Texas, I'm trying to listen more than I talk right now.' His potential candidacy is generating some interest from players who have run successful upstart campaigns. 'It's going to take a Democrat who can make the case against Washington D.C., the status quo, and the powers that to be to win a senate race in Texas,' said Andrew Mamo, a veteran of Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign who is informally advising Talarico. 'James is one of the rare people in the party with the profile and most importantly the storytelling skills to get that done.' State Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas lawyer, is in the mix but he's also eyeing a run for attorney general. Some party insiders privately worry a state lawmaker won't bring the necessary firepower, saying they need to find a candidate with experience running statewide — or at least someone who represents Texas in Congress — due to the sheer amount of resources required to compete in the second-largest state. Veasey and fellow Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro have both been talked up as potential candidates, though Veasey in an interview ruled out a run. A person close to Castro said he was actively looking at the race. While Democrats across the nation believe backlash against President Donald Trump's unpopular agenda like his DOGE cuts and trade war will help in the midterms, the Democratic dream of winning Texas — which once seemed like only a matter of time — now feels farther away. The party's coalition problems are on stark display in South Texas, where Latino-heavy border districts like Gonzalez's shifted dramatically toward Trump. Gonzalez and other Democrats have been warning of their party's need to reverse their fortunes with Latino voters. 'There is work to be done on Latino erosion,' said Tory Gavito, an Austin-based Democratic strategist. 'There is work to be done to make sure infrastructure is incredibly sound in places like Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and South Texas.' Progressive Democrats are eager to back a candidate who runs to the left of Allred, based on their belief that working-class voters can be brought back to the party with a populist economic message. 'We've got to have somebody run who's going to be willing to go travel the state, and connect with a diverse set of working-class voters,' said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas). 'In Texas, people are looking for somebody that's authentic and real, willing to tell it like it is, that's going to energize our base, but then bring a lot of disaffected voters back to the polls.' Allred is widely seen by Texas Democrats as the preferred candidate of Washington, and some said they're tired of out-of-state consultants in their backyard. 'We don't want people from D.C. telling Texans what to do,' said Nancy Thompson, a Democratic activist and founder of Mothers Against Greg Abbott. A strong contingent of the party, however, believes that running too far to the left would blow up their chances in what remains a socially conservative state. 'You have to have real candidates that are willing to sound like everyday Texans,' said Veasey. 'Being part of the national team will get your ass killed.'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Tensions erupt in Congress over vote to condemn Boulder attack
What would otherwise be an uncontroversial congressional vote to denounce the Boulder attack is devolving into a contentious partisan feud, Axios has learned. Why it matters: Language praising ICE and labeling "Free Palestine" an "antisemitic slogan" are sparking fury from some Democrats, who see the provisions as a GOP maneuver to force them into a difficult vote. "It's sheer politics," said one senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts about a sensitive vote. A second senior House Democrat told Axios: "It's unfortunate that they're using a serious antisemitic terrorist attack as a wedge opportunity to divide Democrats. They knew what they were doing adding something like that in there." "Nice little catch to put Democrats on the board," vented a third House Democrat. State of play: At least 15 people and one dog were injured last week in Boulder, Colo., when a suspect allegedly yelled "Free Palestine" as he threw Molotov cocktails at demonstrators advocating the release of hostages held by Hamas. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), along with his fellow Colorado Republicans, have introduced a three-page resolution denouncing the attack, which is scheduled to be voted on next week. The measure labels "Free Palestine" an "antisemitic slogan that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people." "It's more than unfortunate," the second senior House Democrat said of that clause. "It's very f***ed up." Between the lines: A senior House progressive, asked by Axios whether some of the more pro-Palestinian House Democrats will have an issue with the language in the measure, replied, "Yes." Senior aides to several other progressive House Democrats said their bosses were still mulling how to vote on the bill as of Saturday — with some acknowledging that it will be difficult either way. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), asked about the measure on Friday, told Axios: "I haven't seen the resolution yet." "It's being worked," the first senior House Democrat told Axios of party leadership's internal deliberations around the bill. Yes, but: The language is not likely to stop some of the most pro-Israel House Democrats from voting for the legislation. The second House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Axios, "If there's a resolution condemning Boulder, I'm going to vote for that." Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said "Free Palestine" should "mean liberating Palestinians from the oppression of Hamas. Instead, it has come to signify something far more sinister: the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state." "Free Palestine certainly isn't good Shabbos," is how Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a Jewish progressive, put it. Zoom in: The "Free Palestine" language is not the only wrinkle for Democrats in the measure — it also expresses "gratitude" to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for "protecting the homeland." That's another provision that some Democratic offices have raised objections to in discussions with leadership, multiple sources told Axios. Democrats have faced rising tensions with ICE in recent months as the agency has carried out the Trump administration's deportation campaign. Zoom out: This would be far from the first time House Democrats have been divided on a vote around antisemitism and Israel. The caucus split almost evenly on the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which, to the frustration of Democrats, codified a definition of antisemitism that included some criticisms of Israel. They have also frequently been divided on votes around supporting and providing aid to Israel amid their ongoing war with Hamas. Democrats believe a bipartisan measure condemning the Boulder attack — introduced by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and co-sponsored by Reps. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) and Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) — should be the one going to a vote.
