The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday to uphold Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted, even if they arrive as many as five days afterward. Similar “grace periods” exist in 13 other states for all mail voters, and in many more states than that for military and overseas voters. They may well have been at stake in the case, named Watson v. Republican National Committee.
In her opinion for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett specifically cited the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as evidence that the federal government sets the time by which voters make their choices, but states set the time by which those votes are received. A group of retired military leaders and veterans organizations made that point in an amicus brief.
“By the time Congress passed the Election Day Statutes in 1845, 1872, and 1914, multiple states had enacted grace periods to ensure troops’ votes were received and counted. These state practices undercut the argument that the word ‘election’ in the statutes was ever intended or understood to require election officials to count only ballots received on or before Election Day,” the brief reads.
Declare spoke with representatives of two of the organizations that joined the brief, about the case and about military voting more broadly. Alberto Ramos is the Chief Executive Officer of Veterans for all Voters, “a platform for all veteran and/or veteran-affiliated individuals to get involved, regardless of their political leanings, to pursue a more perfect union by increasing voter choice, voter power, and voter enfranchisement.” Chris Purdy is the Founder and CEO of the Chamberlain Network, which “help[s] veterans use their unique experiences and leadership to promote free and fair elections, strengthen healthy democratic institutions, and foster[] a vibrant civic culture.”
—
Miranda Combs, Declare: Was Watson v. RNC a nervous point for your organization? If so, why?
Alberto Ramos, Veterans for all Voters: Yes, it was. For VAV, this was never just an abstract legal fight about deadlines. It was about the service member on a ship, the military spouse overseas, or the disabled rural veteran here at home.
Military and overseas voters already face more friction than most Americans. They cannot always walk into a polling place before work or drop a ballot off at the clerk’s office. They may be deployed, moving between duty stations, or living in a place where mail is slow and unpredictable.
So when a military or veteran voter casts a ballot on time, the question becomes pretty simple. Will the system honor that effort, or will it throw out their vote because the envelope arrived late?
It also raised a basic federalism concern. States have always had the primary responsibility for running their own elections, and when a state makes a reasonable, transparent decision to protect military and overseas voters from mail delays, that judgment deserves respect. We trust our own neighbors and election officials to best understand how to reach out to the people in our own communities. That made Watson a real concern for us. Veterans took an oath to defend the Constitution. The bare minimum we owe those serving far from home is a secure, reliable way to participate in the democracy they are defending.
Chris Purdy, the Chamberlain Network: We have been watching the Watson case closely because protecting the right to vote is a core pillar of our work. The Chamberlain Network believes that democracy can only thrive with free and fair elections, along with a healthy civic culture and robust democratic institutions.
The Watson case tested whether all Americans, including service members and their families, would be able to access their elections. A ballot mailed by Election Day is a vote cast on time; it’s that simple. If the delivery of that vote is delayed by a mail system the voter does not control — a slow truck, a ship, a base mailroom, a foreign postal service — the voter should not be penalized.
This is particularly important for military and overseas voters, whose ballots are rejected for lateness at eight times the rate of domestic ballots. Many of us voted while deployed, but allowing states to have grace periods is also important for those stationed domestically, far from their home of record.
Declare: Now that SCOTUS has weighed in, how do you feel?
Ramos: We’re feeling relieved, but there’s still a fight ahead of us.
I’m relieved because the Court gave voters and election officials clarity before November. It recognized something states have understood for a long time. Voting by mail, especially for military and overseas voters, requires practical flexibility.
A service member should not have to choose between following orders and casting a ballot. A military family should not have to wonder whether a postal delay will erase their voice. If you cast your ballot on time, the system should make every reasonable effort to count it.
And this is bigger than military voters alone. Veterans are not separate from everyday Americans. We are everyday Americans. We live in rural communities. We live with disabilities. We work, raise families, care for loved ones, and sometimes depend on the mail because voting in person is not simple.
That is why the veteran story matters. It helps people see that these protections are not loopholes or partisan tricks. They are the practical safeguards that keep eligible Americans from being silenced by distance, disability, deployment, work, caregiving, or mail delays.
So yes, we are relieved. But there’s still work ahead of us. Now we have to make sure Congress does not override state protections, and that states do not use this moment to pull back safeguards military and veteran voters rely on.
Purdy: We are pleased to see that the Supreme Court sided with voters. The ruling is a win for every service member who wants to vote and trusts that it will be counted, no matter where they are. It is a win for military families, for rural voters, for seniors, for people with disabilities, and for every eligible American who participates in our elections by mail under rules set by their state.
Declare: Beyond the Watson case, what do you think about the status of UOCAVA voting in the states, ahead of the November elections?
Ramos: The next fight may be in Congress and in state capitols. We will oppose any federal effort to override state protections for military and overseas voters, and we will oppose state efforts to roll back grace periods without putting real alternatives in place. Federalism matters here. States know their geography, their mail realities, and their voters. Alaska is not Ohio. A sailor at sea is not the same as someone who lives two blocks from the clerk’s office.
That is why our work now is focused on durable protection. Through the Military Vote Coalition, we are pushing for reasonable receipt windows, ballot tracking, ballot curing, clear information for military families, and secure return options where states choose to provide them.
We have also called on the VFW to endorse reasonable grace periods because this fight should not stay in courtrooms. Veterans should be leading it in our own communities.
Grace periods are one safeguard, not the whole system. States should build redundancy and clarity before the next election. If a military or overseas voter follows the rules and casts a ballot on time, distance, deployment, or the mail should not erase their voice.
Purdy: This ruling does not end the work. Fourteen states and Washington, D.C. now have legal clarity on their grace-period laws. Sixteen additional states have grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters. Protecting those laws and ensuring election officials have the resources and time to implement them before November remain urgent.
Veterans Orgs Share Their Reaction to Supreme Court Mail Ballot Decision
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Monday to uphold Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted, even if they arrive as many as five days afterward. Similar “grace periods” exist in 13 other states for all mail voters, and in many more states than that for military and overseas voters. They may well have been at stake in the case, named Watson v. Republican National Committee.
In her opinion for the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett specifically cited the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as evidence that the federal government sets the time by which voters make their choices, but states set the time by which those votes are received. A group of retired military leaders and veterans organizations made that point in an amicus brief.
“By the time Congress passed the Election Day Statutes in 1845, 1872, and 1914, multiple states had enacted grace periods to ensure troops’ votes were received and counted. These state practices undercut the argument that the word ‘election’ in the statutes was ever intended or understood to require election officials to count only ballots received on or before Election Day,” the brief reads.
Declare spoke with representatives of two of the organizations that joined the brief, about the case and about military voting more broadly. Alberto Ramos is the Chief Executive Officer of Veterans for all Voters, “a platform for all veteran and/or veteran-affiliated individuals to get involved, regardless of their political leanings, to pursue a more perfect union by increasing voter choice, voter power, and voter enfranchisement.” Chris Purdy is the Founder and CEO of the Chamberlain Network, which “help[s] veterans use their unique experiences and leadership to promote free and fair elections, strengthen healthy democratic institutions, and foster[] a vibrant civic culture.”
—
Miranda Combs, Declare: Was Watson v. RNC a nervous point for your organization? If so, why?
Alberto Ramos, Veterans for all Voters: Yes, it was. For VAV, this was never just an abstract legal fight about deadlines. It was about the service member on a ship, the military spouse overseas, or the disabled rural veteran here at home.
Military and overseas voters already face more friction than most Americans. They cannot always walk into a polling place before work or drop a ballot off at the clerk’s office. They may be deployed, moving between duty stations, or living in a place where mail is slow and unpredictable.
So when a military or veteran voter casts a ballot on time, the question becomes pretty simple. Will the system honor that effort, or will it throw out their vote because the envelope arrived late?
It also raised a basic federalism concern. States have always had the primary responsibility for running their own elections, and when a state makes a reasonable, transparent decision to protect military and overseas voters from mail delays, that judgment deserves respect. We trust our own neighbors and election officials to best understand how to reach out to the people in our own communities. That made Watson a real concern for us. Veterans took an oath to defend the Constitution. The bare minimum we owe those serving far from home is a secure, reliable way to participate in the democracy they are defending.
Chris Purdy, the Chamberlain Network: We have been watching the Watson case closely because protecting the right to vote is a core pillar of our work. The Chamberlain Network believes that democracy can only thrive with free and fair elections, along with a healthy civic culture and robust democratic institutions.
The Watson case tested whether all Americans, including service members and their families, would be able to access their elections. A ballot mailed by Election Day is a vote cast on time; it’s that simple. If the delivery of that vote is delayed by a mail system the voter does not control — a slow truck, a ship, a base mailroom, a foreign postal service — the voter should not be penalized.
This is particularly important for military and overseas voters, whose ballots are rejected for lateness at eight times the rate of domestic ballots. Many of us voted while deployed, but allowing states to have grace periods is also important for those stationed domestically, far from their home of record.
Declare: Now that SCOTUS has weighed in, how do you feel?
Ramos: We’re feeling relieved, but there’s still a fight ahead of us.
I’m relieved because the Court gave voters and election officials clarity before November. It recognized something states have understood for a long time. Voting by mail, especially for military and overseas voters, requires practical flexibility.
A service member should not have to choose between following orders and casting a ballot. A military family should not have to wonder whether a postal delay will erase their voice. If you cast your ballot on time, the system should make every reasonable effort to count it.
And this is bigger than military voters alone. Veterans are not separate from everyday Americans. We are everyday Americans. We live in rural communities. We live with disabilities. We work, raise families, care for loved ones, and sometimes depend on the mail because voting in person is not simple.
That is why the veteran story matters. It helps people see that these protections are not loopholes or partisan tricks. They are the practical safeguards that keep eligible Americans from being silenced by distance, disability, deployment, work, caregiving, or mail delays.
So yes, we are relieved. But there’s still work ahead of us. Now we have to make sure Congress does not override state protections, and that states do not use this moment to pull back safeguards military and veteran voters rely on.
Purdy: We are pleased to see that the Supreme Court sided with voters. The ruling is a win for every service member who wants to vote and trusts that it will be counted, no matter where they are. It is a win for military families, for rural voters, for seniors, for people with disabilities, and for every eligible American who participates in our elections by mail under rules set by their state.
Declare: Beyond the Watson case, what do you think about the status of UOCAVA voting in the states, ahead of the November elections?
Ramos: The next fight may be in Congress and in state capitols. We will oppose any federal effort to override state protections for military and overseas voters, and we will oppose state efforts to roll back grace periods without putting real alternatives in place. Federalism matters here. States know their geography, their mail realities, and their voters. Alaska is not Ohio. A sailor at sea is not the same as someone who lives two blocks from the clerk’s office.
That is why our work now is focused on durable protection. Through the Military Vote Coalition, we are pushing for reasonable receipt windows, ballot tracking, ballot curing, clear information for military families, and secure return options where states choose to provide them.
We have also called on the VFW to endorse reasonable grace periods because this fight should not stay in courtrooms. Veterans should be leading it in our own communities.
Grace periods are one safeguard, not the whole system. States should build redundancy and clarity before the next election. If a military or overseas voter follows the rules and casts a ballot on time, distance, deployment, or the mail should not erase their voice.
Purdy: This ruling does not end the work. Fourteen states and Washington, D.C. now have legal clarity on their grace-period laws. Sixteen additional states have grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters. Protecting those laws and ensuring election officials have the resources and time to implement them before November remain urgent.