'Election Day' Is Dead: Alito Torches 5-4 Ruling That Killed It

Monday’s bombshell Supreme Court ruling established that “election day” isn’t really election day at all; it’s a period of time. Specifically, the court decided 5-4 in Watson v. RNC that states could count mail-in ballots even if they were received after the election date, as long as they were postmarked in time.

Naturally, many conservatives, including President Trump, were deeply disappointed by the decision, which to many seemed to defy common sense and the notion of election integrity. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and his ilk were almost certainly cheering; after all, they still haven’t certified the governor’s primary, which was held on June 2.

A clown show.

Justice Samuel Alito was one of those who strongly disagreed with the opinion, and he torched the ruling in his dissent, which was joined in full by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch and in part by Brett Kavanaugh. He summed up his opposition by concluding that the ruling virtually invites in an obvious danger: fraud.

…today's decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans' faith in the integrity of this country's elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) agrees:

Justice Alito's dissent lays it out plain as day.

This opinion opens the door to more fraud and it is not difficult to understand why.

Outside of military ballots, ballots that show up after election day should not be counted. They are highly suspect. https://t.co/dIVNJyxvGc pic.twitter.com/L0z00O8QW9
— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) June 29, 2026

'No More Excuses!': Trump Torches Senate SAVE Act Holdouts After SCOTUS Mail-In Ballot Blow

Alito wrote that “election day” should actually mean election day:

If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated. The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement.

RealClearInvestigations writer Julie Kelly writes that Alito also points out a major flaw in the ruling: The vote count could literally go right up until the time lawmakers report for their swearing-in.

Alito in dissent: "Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further…
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) June 29, 2026

Alito in dissent: "Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity."
This is the unanswered question so far.
"The majority holds that a State complies with the federal election-day statutes if it requires that ballots are post marked by election day and received within five days after. But this ostensibly simple holding obfuscates the many unsettling questions that the majority’s position entails.
"For instance, do the federal election-day statutes impose any ballot-receipt deadlines? Mississippi counts absentee ballots that arrive up to five days after the federal election day, but nothing in the majority opinion turns on that 5-day duration. Indeed, some States will count mail-in ballots that arrive as late as 21 days after election day. If the 'election' is complete when voters fill out their ballots and send them on their way, may States eliminate ballot-receipt deadlines entirely? It appears that the only federal backstops for ballot receipt are the date when newly elected Representatives and Senators must report for their swearing in and the date when Presidential electors must cast their votes."

Many Americans are already concerned about election integrity, as evidenced by the fact that 83 percent endorse voter ID. The vote counting in California is a prime example of why: Even if there is no actual fraud, the lead changes that occur days after election day give at least the appearance of corruption. Democrats have made the term “election day” meaningless, and this ruling will do little to reassure citizens that our vote is protected.

Alito just explained why.

Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote.

Help us continue to report why Democrats oppose such obvious measures by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.