MI Ballots in Mailboxes While Courts Battle the Confusion They Cause and Sen. Lindsey Tries to Save the Day

By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI News & Commentary Editor

June 30, 2026

Based on court rulings over the past five days, there’s a new reality in Michigan elections: mail-in ballots are here to stay.

The week began with an unpleasant reminder — absentee ballots arriving in mailboxes across Michigan, courtesy of the permanent absentee voter list, one of Proposal 2’s election "innovations."

Then came the rulings.

A Michigan appeals court ruled that mismatched ballot stubs are no grounds for rejection. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s grace period for ballots received after Election Day — with direct implications for Michigan.

And while Michigan Senator Jonathan Lindsey (R-17th District) introduced legislation to push back on mail-in ballots, the courts this week sent a clear message: the era of mail-in voting isn’t up for debate. Adjust or get out of the way.

The Michigan Stub Ruling

The first ruling landed Friday, the day after ballots began going out. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) challenge to Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s guidance on ballot stub mismatches.

Michigan law requires election inspectors to compare the unique number on a ballot stub against the number on the return envelope. The RNC argued that a mismatch should mean automatic ballot rejection.

Writing for the panel, Judge Michelle Rick disagreed, saying the statute tells inspectors to compare the numbers but says nothing about what happens when they don’t match. She came to that conclusion by comparing a separate provision covering in-person ballots and which expressly mandates rejection for stub mismatches. Both provisions were part of the same 2023 legislative package. Rick’s reasoned: when the Legislature wanted a mismatch to mean rejection, it said so. It didn’t say so for absentee ballots.

The RNC can appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, but for now the ruling stands and impacts the primary ballots already in voters’ hands.

Watson v. RNC: The Surprise from Washington

The more important ruling came yesterday. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state of Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to five business days later.

The decision protects similar grace period laws in fourteen states and Washington D.C., and has implications for sixteen additional states that provide grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters.

This was an especially tough one for conservatives to lose. When the Court heard oral arguments in March, SCOTUSblog’s headline read: “Justices seem ready to overturn state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots.”

During oral argument Justice Alito led the charge, declaring from the bench that “we don’t have Election Day anymore — we have election month, or we have election months,” and asking whether public confidence could survive election results being “radically flipped by the acceptance later of a big stash of ballots.” But Alito's opinion didn't prevail.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the Court’s three liberal justices, wrote the 5-4 majority opinion holding that federal election-day statutes govern when votes must be cast — not when ballots must be received. “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt,” Barrett wrote, “and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.” Thank you, ACB.

Seth Keshel predicted on X the case would produce a "6-3 or 5-4 ruling destroying the Democrat lifeline of counting late-arriving mail-in ballots." After the ruling, he wrote on Substack:

This seemed like a slam dunk to me. The statements given by the GOP-appointed justices during briefings were ironclad in favor of a meaningful interpretation of Election Day, and there was even a little wiggle room for Barrett or Roberts (but not both) to botch it and still have the right decision come down.

Lindsey's SB 1054: The Pushback

One Michigan lawmaker isn't taking the hint. Senator Lindsey introduced Senate Bill 1054 on June 26 — the same day as the stub ruling, the same week ballots hit mailboxes. The bill would restore Michigan’s prior excuse requirement, limiting absentee voting to voters with qualifying reasons: disability, religious objection, travel, age, or service as an election inspector. It directly challenges what Michigan voters approved in 2018.

How We Got Here

Absentee voting has existed in Michigan since the Civil War era, originally reserved for soldiers unable to reach the polls. For most of the 20th century, Michigan required a qualifying excuse — illness, travel, age, or disability — before a voter could cast a ballot by mail.

That changed in November 2018, when Proposal 3 was approved, a state constitutional amendment adding no-excuse absentee voting. Four years later, Proposal 2 (2022), yet another election innovation creating the permanent absentee voter list allowing voters who sign up to receive a mail ballot automatically, every election, without having to request one each time. The ballots landing in Michigan mailboxes this week are the direct result of that legislative maneuvering and Michigan voters approving it.

Michigan is not alone in this trend, but it is in select company globally. No-excuse mail voting is practiced in only about nine to eleven countries worldwide — among them Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

By adopting no-excuse absentee voting, Michigan voters placed themselves in an elite, relatively permissive global club.

Most nations that allow mail voting at all still require a qualifying reason. By adopting no-excuse absentee voting, Michigan voters placed themselves in an elite, relatively permissive global club. SB 1054 is directly challenging that choice. Proposal 3 was a constitutional amendment passed by direct voter initiative; unwinding it will not be easy.

That’s a steep climb for Lindsey. But the bill’s introduction in the middle of this week’s cascade is its own signal: the fight over mail-in voting in Michigan is nowhere near finished.

If You Received a Mail-In Ballot

If you requested a mail-in ballot or are on the permanent mail-in ballot list, the most secure way to return your ballot — and keep its chain of custody intact — is to vote in person and feed it into the machine yourself. For some, that isn’t possible. We do what we have to do. But for those who can, it’s the simplest way to remove your ballot from this week’s drama — no postmark disputes, no stub mismatches, no grace periods to litigate.