Election Day Means Election Day

Michigan Fair Elections Institute Joins Three Citizen Groups

Asking Supreme Court to Enforce a Single, Uniform Deadline

for All American Votes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 20, 2026

Stockbridge, Mich. — Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI), joining a coalition of four citizen organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday, urging the justices to declare, once and for all, that Election Day is a hard deadline — not an aspirational suggestion.

The brief, filed in Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, argues that allowing states to accept and count ballots days after Election Day creates two unequal classes of voters, erodes public confidence, and violates the uniform federal Election Day Congress has mandated since 1872. Oral argument is scheduled for March 23, 2026.

The Case: Watson v. Republican National Committee

The case began in Mississippi, where state law allows absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted by election officials up to five business days after Election Day. The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and individual plaintiffs sued Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, arguing that the state's grace period conflicts with federal statutes — specifically 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 — which establish a single, uniform day for federal elections.

A federal district court upheld Mississippi's law, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that federal law requires ballots to be in the physical custody of election officials by Election Day — not merely postmarked by that date.

Mississippi petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in November 2025. A decision is expected by summer 2026, in time to govern the 2026 midterm elections. Approximately 16 states currently allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accepted within varying windows of time after that date — ranging from three days to two weeks — meaning the ruling will have nationwide implications.

The precise legal question before the Court is whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots cast by federal Election Day to be received by election officials after that day.

The Amicus Brief: "Consummation" Over "Private Intent"

The amici — Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI), Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA), PA Fair Elections (PAFE), and Veterans for America First (VFAF) — support the RNC's position and urge the Court to adopt what they call an "Election Day Consummation" standard. Under this framework, an election is a singular, public act that is completed only when the voter has cast a ballot and the state has received it by the federally mandated Election Day deadline. The brief argues that Mississippi's competing "private intent" theory — treating an election as complete whenever the voter privately marks a ballot, regardless of when officials receive it — improperly elevates individual action over the public, structural requirements that Congress has established.

The brief further argues that Congress itself addressed the tension between a firm Election Day and logistical hardship when it passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act. Rather than creating open-ended post-election receipt windows, Congress established specific, structured mechanisms for military and overseas voters — and the amici contend that those carefully crafted accommodations confirm, rather than undermine, the existence of a firm federal deadline for all other ballots.

Drawing on original field research across three battleground states — and including documentation from Michigan — the brief presents what it characterizes as a "verification vacuum": empirical evidence of systemic breakdowns that occur when post-Election Day receipt windows remain open. Research out of Michigan uncovered a human data-entry error in Leelanau County that went undetected during an extended post-election tabulation window, illustrating how even well-run jurisdictions are vulnerable when overtime receipt periods keep the books open after Election Day. The coalition's research also documents 27,392 Pennsylvania voters whose ballots were counted in a post-election window before their eligibility could be fully verified, and tracking failures in Wisconsin that left ineligible wards undetected during extended receipt windows.

The brief also argues that late-receipt laws create an unconstitutional two-tiered system: a "Verified Class" of Election Day voters subject to real-time identity and eligibility checks, and an "Unverified Class" of post-deadline voters whose ballots are processed with diminished safeguards. The amici invoke the Equal Protection Clause and point to the closely contested 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race — eventually decided in an eight-month legal battle — as a cautionary illustration of what they call "litigation-led elections" that can result when post-election ballot receipt is permitted.

Who Filed the Brief and Why It Matters

MFEI is a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer organization that conducts empirical research into election administration throughout Michigan, identifies systemic vulnerabilities, and educates the public on federal and state election law. MFEI's researchers have spent years documenting the real-world consequences of post-Election Day receipt windows — making the Institute uniquely positioned to provide the Supreme Court with concrete, data-driven evidence from a state that has been at the center of national election integrity debates. MFEI is joined by Wisconsin Voter Alliance (WVA) and PA Fair Elections (PAFE), which conduct comparable research in their respective states.

Veterans for America First (VFAF) joins the brief specifically to protect the integrity of military and overseas ballots cast under UOCAVA. Counterintuitively, the group argues that enforcing a firm Election Day deadline is the best way to protect military votes: a ballot cast by a service member overseas carries no more weight than it should, and no less, only when it is subject to the same uniform deadline and verification standards applied to all other ballots.

Ron Heuer, President of Wisconsin Voter Alliance and U.S. Army Captain (ret.) who served in Vietnam and the Wisconsin National Guard, stated: "A deadline for one is a deadline for all. Without a firm, uniform deadline, a single weak link in the chain can cause systemic errors that affect national outcomes."

Lead attorney Erick Kaardal of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. added: "The evidence of unverified ballots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan demonstrates that accepting ballots after Election Day creates an unconstitutional dual-track election system. The Court must enforce the Congressionally mandated Election Day standard in order to protect the integrity of the National Vote."

Why Amicus Briefs Matter

An amicus curiae brief — Latin for "friend of the court" — is a legal filing submitted by a party who is not a direct litigant in a case but has a strong interest in the outcome. The Supreme Court regularly grants permission for amicus briefs in high-profile cases, and the justices have acknowledged that well-crafted amicus submissions can introduce evidence, perspectives, or legal arguments that neither party has raised or developed on its own.

In election cases, amicus briefs are particularly valuable because the practical consequences of a ruling ripple far beyond the named parties. In Watson v. RNC, the direct parties are Mississippi's Secretary of State and the Republican National Committee — but the decision will directly affect election administrators, voters, and election integrity organizations in all 50 states. Amici like WVA, MFEI, PAFE, and VFAF can speak to real-world experience that no named party can provide: years of on-the-ground research documenting what actually happens when post-Election Day ballot receipt windows remain open.

The brief filed by these groups is distinctive in that it does not simply offer legal argument — it presents original empirical data from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan as evidence that the Court may weigh alongside the statutory and constitutional arguments advanced by the parties themselves.

What Comes Next

Oral arguments in Watson v. RNC are scheduled for March 23, 2026. A decision from the Court is expected before the end of the term in summer 2026, providing clarity for election administrators preparing for the November 2026 midterm elections. A ruling in favor of the RNC's position would require approximately 16 states to revise their absentee ballot receipt rules. A ruling for Mississippi would leave in place the existing patchwork of state post-election receipt windows.

 About MFEI

Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI) is a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to promoting election integrity, transparency, and strict observance of federal and state law in Michigan through direct research, litigation support, amicus participation, and public education. MFEI is joined in this brief by Wisconsin Voter Alliance and PA Fair Elections, which conduct identical work in their home states, and Veterans for America First (VFAF), a non-profit advocacy organization focused on protecting the rights and votes of veterans, active-duty military, and first responders.

About Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A.

Lead counsel Erick Kaardal is a partner at Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with more than 30 years of experience representing clients in government-accountability litigation. He has recorded over 60 election integrity legal successes, including two U.S. Supreme Court victories. The brief was authored and filed by Kaardal and associate attorney Elizabeth Nielsen. www.mklaw.com

###

Press Contact: Melanie Nivelt, Michigan Fair Elections Institute | 248.425.8896