There are a great many things wrong with our election systems, but one of them may be addressed in a case that awaits decision in the Supreme Court. The case is Watson v. Republican National Committee, and the issue is whether the State of Mississippi’s statute allowing ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted violates federal law.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The relevant federal laws, which would govern over any inconsistent state law, include 2 U.S.C. Sec. 7:
The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
And 3 U.S.C. Sec. 1:
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on election day, in accordance with the laws of the State enacted prior to election day.
The Republican National Committee says the federal statutes mean what they say: for national elections, we have an Election Day, not an Election Season. At oral argument, most justices seemed sympathetic to that argument.
We have seen in California how counting ballots received well after Election Day gives the appearance, and perhaps the reality, of widespread fraud. The Watson case wouldn’t directly impact what is happening now in California, as those are state, not federal, races. But if the Court enforces the concept of an Election Day, states likely will conform their own procedures rather than try to administer separate federal and state voting and counting protocols.
Getting back to the concept of an Election Day would be a step forward, but would leave a great deal of room for further reforms.