Following today’s Supreme Court decision in RNC v. Watson, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, released a statement:

“In my view, there are plausible policy reasons to specify that all ballots should be in hand, not simply in the mail, by Election Day. But the Supreme Court was not presented today with that, or any, policy question. It was asked to resolve the narrow question of whether the laws passed by Congress have all along forbidden states from allowing grace periods. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for a five-justice majority, found that current law is best construed as leaving the issue to the discretion of states, as is common in our constitutional election system.

“Eager to address policy implications, Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent warns against absentee ballots generally and says the majority’s decision ‘opens Pandora’s box.’ By his analogy, however, Pandora’s box has been lying open for years, as many states have long observed grace periods (including, here, the conservative state of Mississippi). Perhaps bad experience with grace periods, especially long ones, will lead states to retreat, or perhaps Congress will use its Constitutional power to prescribe a new uniform rule. Either way, those are policy questions for legislators and not for the Court to resolve today.”

Stephen Richer, a legal fellow with Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, also released a statement:

“Whether or not this makes for good public policy is certainly debatable. But this ruling is a major sigh of relief for election administrators in 15 states. A ruling in favor of the RNC would have created a whole host of last-minute administrative challenges.”

To speak with Olson or Richer further on today’s decision, contact Christopher Tarvardian.