Federal and State Power Over Mail Voting Rules, 1986–2026

Federal and State Power Over Mail Voting Rules, 1986–2026

1. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 (the Elections Clause)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports

   “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 choosing Senators.”Hide quote

   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 choosing Senators.

2. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 (presentment)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1788 · supports

   “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated”Hide quote

   Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated

3. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · contests

   “The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.””Hide quote

   The power of Congress over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections “is paramount, and may be exercised at any time, and to any extent which it deems expedient; and so far as it is exercised, and no farther, the regulations effected supersede those of the State which are inconsistent therewith.”

4. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2013-06-17 · supports

   “Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.”Hide quote

   Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The Constitution prescribes a straightforward rule for the composition of the federal electorate. … Since the power to establish voting requirements is of little value without the power to enforce those requirements, Arizona is correct that it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications.

5. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), opinion of the Court

   Supreme Court of the United States (via Cornell LII), 2023-06-27 · complicates

   “We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”Hide quote

   We are asked to decide whether the Elections Clause carves out an exception to this basic principle. We hold that it does not. The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

6. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · contests

   “The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, also known as UOCAVA, was enacted by Congress in 1986. UOCAVA requires that states and territories allow members of the uniformed services serving away from home, their family members, and U.S. citizens who are residing outside the country to register and vote absentee in federal elections. UOCAVA has been amended on several occasions, with the most recent major amendments in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.”Hide quote

   The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, also known as UOCAVA, was enacted by Congress in 1986. UOCAVA requires that states and territories allow members of the uniformed services serving away from home, their family members, and U.S. citizens who are residing outside the country to register and vote absentee in federal elections. UOCAVA has been amended on several occasions, with the most recent major amendments in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009.

7. 52 U.S.C. §20302, State responsibilities (UOCAVA, as amended by the MOVE Act)

   Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2009 · contests

   “Each State shall— (1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office; ... (8) transmit a validly requested absentee ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter— (A) except as provided in subsection (g), in the case in which the request is received at least 45 days before an election for Federal office, not later than 45 days before the election ... 2009—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 111–84, § 577(a)(1), added par. (6). ... Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 111–84, § 579(a)(1), added par. (8).”Hide quote

   Each State shall— (1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office; ... (8) transmit a validly requested absentee ballot to an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter— (A) except as provided in subsection (g), in the case in which the request is received at least 45 days before an election for Federal office, not later than 45 days before the election ... 2009—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 111–84, § 577(a)(1), added par. (6). ... Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 111–84, § 579(a)(1), added par. (8).

8. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports

   “The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.”Hide quote

   The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the NVRA or the Motor Voter Act was enacted by Congress in 1993. The NVRA requires states to make voter registration opportunities for federal elections available through the mail and when people apply for or receive driver licenses, public assistance, disability services, and other government services. The NVRA also provides rules regarding maintenance of voter registration lists for federal elections.

9. Statutes Enforced By The Voting Section

   U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2024-08-15 · supports

   “The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.”Hide quote

   The Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, was enacted by Congress in 2002. HAVA establishes minimum standards for states to follow in several key aspects of administration of federal elections, including voting systems, provisional ballots, voter information posters on election days, first time voters who register to vote by mail and statewide voter registration databases.

10. The Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747): Overview of Major Provisions (IN11781)

    Congressional Research Service, 2021-10-21 · supports

    “On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;”Hide quote

    On September 14, 2021, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act. On October 20, 2021, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. … require states to offer preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, online registration, and same-day registration; … require states to offer early voting and no-excuse absentee voting; … require jurisdictions with voter identification requirements to accept specified information or documentation to satisfy ID requirements;

11. Wednesday, January 19, 2022

    United States Senate Periodical Press Gallery, 2022-01-19 · supports

    “Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.”Hide quote

    Not agreed to, 49-51: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746 (Legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act). Required 60-affirmative votes.

12. House passes GOP's SAVE America Act

    Just The News, 2026-02-11 · supports

    “The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.”Hide quote

    The House of Representatives on Wednesday night passed the new Republican-led Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which requires individuals to present proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires Americans to show ID when voting. The House passed the legislation, which combined two bills, in a 218-213 vote.

13. U.S. House Passes the SAVE America Act and Will Combine It With a Defense Appropriations Bill to Make it Harder to Vote Down in the Senate

    American Democracy Minute, 2026-07-23 · supports

    “July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.”Hide quote

    July 22nd the House passed the bill, which would end universal mail voting in eight states and DC, mandate voter ID narrow its options, and mandate documentary proof of citizenship at registration. MIRVing inserts language which, in this case, packages the SAVE America Act with the ordinarily bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to make it harder to vote down in the Senate.

14. Roll Call Vote 119th Congress - 2nd Session, Vote Number 231

    United States Senate, 2026-08-08 · supports

    “Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2”Hide quote

    Vote Number: 231 Vote Date: August 8, 2026, 04:36 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected Measure Number: S. 5271 Measure Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voters to provide photo identification. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2

15. Trump pumps brakes on Senate budget plan, delaying GOP SAVE America push

    Fox News, 2026-08-08 · supports

    “That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.”Hide quote

    That process is how Republicans hope to pass the SAVE America Act without Democrats getting the chance to block it with the filibuster. Republicans were ready to vote on the $150 billion budget blueprint drafted by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., until Trump intervened over concerns that it would fail.

16. Early Voting and Mail Voting: Overview and Issues for Congress (IF11477)

    Congressional Research Service, 2026-07-10 · supports

    “President Donald Trump issued executive orders on March 25, 2025, and March 31, 2026, that include provisions related to mail voting. Among other topics, E.O. 14248 addresses deadlines for returning mail ballots and E.O. 14399 addresses the design and transmission of mail balloting materials. ... Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119th Congress to codify or nullify the executive orders. Some have also offered proposals to require or prohibit use of alternatives to in-person voting on Election Day. For example, the Voter Empowerment Act, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, and the Vote at Home Act would require states to offer early and no-excuse mail voting, no-excuse mail voting, and all-mail elections, respectively, for federal races. The Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the Mail Ballot Integrity Act, a proposed amendment to the Secure America Act, and a proposed amendment to the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would prohibit states from sending voters ballots for federal elections except on request, and the latter three measures would limit mail voting in federal elections to voters in specified categories.”Hide quote

    President Donald Trump issued executive orders on March 25, 2025, and March 31, 2026, that include provisions related to mail voting. Among other topics, E.O. 14248 addresses deadlines for returning mail ballots and E.O. 14399 addresses the design and transmission of mail balloting materials. ... Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119th Congress to codify or nullify the executive orders. Some have also offered proposals to require or prohibit use of alternatives to in-person voting on Election Day. For example, the Voter Empowerment Act, the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act, and the Vote at Home Act would require states to offer early and no-excuse mail voting, no-excuse mail voting, and all-mail elections, respectively, for federal races. The Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, the Mail Ballot Integrity Act, a proposed amendment to the Secure America Act, and a proposed amendment to the House-passed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would prohibit states from sending voters ballots for federal elections except on request, and the latter three measures would limit mail voting in federal elections to voters in specified categories.

17. Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, Sec. 3, 91 FR 17125

    Federal Register, 2026-04-03 · supports

    “United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots. ... the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order. The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following: (i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that: (A) is marked as Official Election Mail ... (B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode ... (iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.”Hide quote

    United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots. ... the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order. The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following: (i) Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that: (A) is marked as Official Election Mail ... (B) is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode ... (iii) Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.

18. Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · contests

    “The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).”Hide quote

    The Order is an internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch. … see also post, at 2–3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting); post, at 14–15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting).

19. Trump v. California, No. 26A124 (per curiam, on application for stay)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports

    “The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”Hide quote

    The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.

20. Trump v. California, No. 26A124, Sotomayor, J., with whom Kagan, J., joins, dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · supports

    “Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”Hide quote

    Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.

21. United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305 (order on application for stay; Kavanaugh, J., concurring)

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · supports

    “The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”Hide quote

    The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. See 39 U. S. C. §401(2). But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.

22. United States Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305, Alito, J., with whom Thomas, J., joins, dissenting

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · contests

    “JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay. ... The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three special features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. ... As for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to succeed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause. U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules.”Hide quote

    JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay. ... The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three special features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be scanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. ... As for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to succeed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause. U. S. Const., Art. I, §4, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules.

23. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (March 2026 mail voting executive order): case page

    Brennan Center for Justice (co-counsel for the plaintiffs), 2026-09-17 · supports

    “On August 11, the district court granted the League Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a nation-wide preliminary injunction, thereby halting the implementation of Section 3 in all fifty states. ... On August 21, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26 ... On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. ... On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay. On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means that the Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.”Hide quote

    On August 11, the district court granted the League Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a nation-wide preliminary injunction, thereby halting the implementation of Section 3 in all fifty states. ... On August 21, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26 ... On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. ... On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay. On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means that the Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.

24. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), syllabus

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... Held: The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. ... Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, and in which Kavanaugh, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III”Hide quote

    Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... Held: The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day. ... Barrett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, and in which Kavanaugh, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III

25. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), opinion of the Court

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. ... Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process. The election-day statutes are proof of concept: When voting on different days in different States sparked allegations of fraud, Congress set a nationally uniform deadline for voting. If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.”Hide quote

    Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections. ... Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process. The election-day statutes are proof of concept: When voting on different days in different States sparked allegations of fraud, Congress set a nationally uniform deadline for voting. If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.

26. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), opinion of the Court

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “And UOCAVA confirms that while Congress has set the date by which absentee ballots must be cast, States have the power to set the date by which they must be received.”Hide quote

    And UOCAVA confirms that while Congress has set the date by which absentee ballots must be cast, States have the power to set the date by which they must be received.

27. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), syllabus

    Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

    “State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs' policy arguments about election integrity and voter confidence are properly directed to legislatures, not courts”Hide quote

    State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs' policy arguments about election integrity and voter confidence are properly directed to legislatures, not courts

28. California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary

    Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports

    “However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.”Hide quote

    However, as to the remaining states, the court concluded that the challenged EO sections exceeded the President's constitutional authority, violated the separation of powers, and conflicted with federal statutes such as the NVRA, the UOCAVA, and the HAVA.

29. California v. Trump (D. Mass., No. 1:25-cv-10810): case summary

    Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, University of Michigan Law School, 2026-10-23 · supports

    “On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).”Hide quote

    On July 13, 2026, District Judge Casper entered a judgment and order of permanent injunction. The Court permanently enjoined federal defendants, including the EAC and the Attorney General, from enforcing the invalidated provisions that required documentary proof of citizenship, alterations to federal post card forms, grant conditioning, and Election Day ballot receipt deadlines. On September 9, 2026, the defendants appealed this judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Case No. 26-2038).

30. Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots (entries for North Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Kansas)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-25 · supports

    “Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. Previously, ballots could be received four days after the election as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. ... (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. … Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election.”Hide quote

    Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. Previously, ballots could be received four days after the election as long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. ... (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. … Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election.

31. Table 18: States With Mostly Mail Elections

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-07 · supports

    “Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative”Hide quote

    Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative

32. H.B. 300 Amendments to Election Law (Enrolled Copy), 2025 General Session

    Utah State Legislature, 2025 · supports

    “subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail”Hide quote

    subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail

33. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws 2016–2026 (no-excuse table: no-excuse or all-mail | excuse required | COVID-19 excuse added; receipt-deadline table: Election Day receipt | post-Election Day receipt)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states ... November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states … January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. … November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. … November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. … November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. … November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C. ... As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic.”Hide quote

    November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states ... November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states … January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. … November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. … November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. … November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. … November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C. ... As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic.

Mail Voting in the US: Who Uses It and Its Effects, 2016–2026

1. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “The majority of voters in the 2024 general election cast their ballots in person, with 35.2% voting in person before Election Day and 37.4% voting in person on Election Day. ... Mail voting comprised 30.3% of the turnout for the 2024 election, which is down from the high water mark for mail voting seen in 2020 (43%) but still larger than the percentage of the electorate that voted by mail in pre-pandemic elections. ... the level of mail voting in 2024 was still elevated compared to pre-pandemic elections; for both 2016 and 2018, mail voting comprised approximately one-quarter of voter turnout.”Hide quote

   The majority of voters in the 2024 general election cast their ballots in person, with 35.2% voting in person before Election Day and 37.4% voting in person on Election Day. ... Mail voting comprised 30.3% of the turnout for the 2024 election, which is down from the high water mark for mail voting seen in 2020 (43%) but still larger than the percentage of the electorate that voted by mail in pre-pandemic elections. ... the level of mail voting in 2024 was still elevated compared to pre-pandemic elections; for both 2016 and 2018, mail voting comprised approximately one-quarter of voter turnout.

2. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “In the 2016 EAVS, 54.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day, and in the 2018 EAVS, 58.2% of voters did so. In 2020, only 30.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day. ... The percentage of voters who used a mailed ballot to vote surged, from 24.5% in 2016 and 25.6% in 2018 to 43.1% in 2020. ... In 2016, 25.3% of voters cast their ballots early in person, and 22% did so in 2018, compared to 30.6% for the 2020 general election. ... Jurisdiction-level analysis shows that the largest increases in mail voting rates occurred in jurisdictions in states that newly instituted all-mail elections in 2020 and in jurisdictions in states that removed requirements to provide an excuse to request a mailed ballot.”Hide quote

   In the 2016 EAVS, 54.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day, and in the 2018 EAVS, 58.2% of voters did so. In 2020, only 30.5% of voters cast their ballots in person on Election Day. ... The percentage of voters who used a mailed ballot to vote surged, from 24.5% in 2016 and 25.6% in 2018 to 43.1% in 2020. ... In 2016, 25.3% of voters cast their ballots early in person, and 22% did so in 2018, compared to 30.6% for the 2020 general election. ... Jurisdiction-level analysis shows that the largest increases in mail voting rates occurred in jurisdictions in states that newly instituted all-mail elections in 2020 and in jurisdictions in states that removed requirements to provide an excuse to request a mailed ballot.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “The use of mail voting decreased for the 2022 general election, at 31.9% of voters, but remains higher than the 25.6% of voters who voted by mail in the 2018 general election. Although use of in-person early voting increased in the 2020 general election to 30.5%, it decreased to 22.2% in the 2022 general election”Hide quote

   The use of mail voting decreased for the 2022 general election, at 31.9% of voters, but remains higher than the 25.6% of voters who voted by mail in the 2018 general election. Although use of in-person early voting increased in the 2020 general election to 30.5%, it decreased to 22.2% in the 2022 general election

4. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06-29 · complicates

   “In 2016, 41.3 percent of all ballots were cast before Election Day. Of the total turnout, 17.2 percent of ballots were cast using in-person early voting and 23.7 percent were cast using by-mail absentee voting.”Hide quote

   In 2016, 41.3 percent of all ballots were cast before Election Day. Of the total turnout, 17.2 percent of ballots were cast using in-person early voting and 23.7 percent were cast using by-mail absentee voting.

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report, Overview Table 1

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Alabama 5.5% ... Alaska [1] 14.3% ... American Samoa [2] 1.9% ... Arizona [3] 74.7% ... Arkansas 2.1% ... California 80.8% ... Colorado [4] 91.3% ... Connecticut 6.5% ... Delaware 6.5% ... District of Columbia 51.1% ... Florida [5] 26.8% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% ... Guam [7] 0.3% ... Hawaii 92.5% ... Idaho [8] 19.6% ... Illinois [9] 17.8% ... Indiana [10] 53.7% ... Iowa -- ... Kansas 11.0% ... Kentucky 5.6% ... Louisiana [11] 5.9% ... Maine [12] 25.5% ... Maryland 24.6% ... Massachusetts [13] 33.4% ... Michigan 35.4% ... Minnesota 13.7% ... Mississippi [14] -- ... Missouri 5.7% ... Montana [15] -- ... Nebraska [16] 31.8% ... Nevada 44.1% ... New Hampshire 11.2% ... New Jersey [17] 19.2% ... New Mexico 12.0% ... New York 10.0% ... North Carolina [18] 5.2% ... North Dakota 24.0% ... Northern Mariana Islands 7.3% ... Ohio 18.1% ... Oklahoma 6.3% ... Oregon [19] 99.3% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% ... Puerto Rico [21] 10.3% ... Rhode Island 10.0% ... South Carolina 3.8% ... South Dakota 36.6% ... Tennessee 2.8% ... Texas 3.3% ... U.S. Virgin Islands 3.8% ... Utah 91.5% ... Vermont [22] 64.7% ... Virginia 10.5% ... Washington [23] 98.5% ... West Virginia 2.9% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% ... Wyoming 14.1% ... U.S. Total 30.3% ... % Turnout by Mail uses (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100.”Hide quote

   Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Alabama 5.5% ... Alaska [1] 14.3% ... American Samoa [2] 1.9% ... Arizona [3] 74.7% ... Arkansas 2.1% ... California 80.8% ... Colorado [4] 91.3% ... Connecticut 6.5% ... Delaware 6.5% ... District of Columbia 51.1% ... Florida [5] 26.8% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% ... Guam [7] 0.3% ... Hawaii 92.5% ... Idaho [8] 19.6% ... Illinois [9] 17.8% ... Indiana [10] 53.7% ... Iowa -- ... Kansas 11.0% ... Kentucky 5.6% ... Louisiana [11] 5.9% ... Maine [12] 25.5% ... Maryland 24.6% ... Massachusetts [13] 33.4% ... Michigan 35.4% ... Minnesota 13.7% ... Mississippi [14] -- ... Missouri 5.7% ... Montana [15] -- ... Nebraska [16] 31.8% ... Nevada 44.1% ... New Hampshire 11.2% ... New Jersey [17] 19.2% ... New Mexico 12.0% ... New York 10.0% ... North Carolina [18] 5.2% ... North Dakota 24.0% ... Northern Mariana Islands 7.3% ... Ohio 18.1% ... Oklahoma 6.3% ... Oregon [19] 99.3% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% ... Puerto Rico [21] 10.3% ... Rhode Island 10.0% ... South Carolina 3.8% ... South Dakota 36.6% ... Tennessee 2.8% ... Texas 3.3% ... U.S. Virgin Islands 3.8% ... Utah 91.5% ... Vermont [22] 64.7% ... Virginia 10.5% ... Washington [23] 98.5% ... West Virginia 2.9% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% ... Wyoming 14.1% ... U.S. Total 30.3% ... % Turnout by Mail uses (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100.

6. 2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available (CB25-TPS.29)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2025-04-30 · supports

   “Voting methods also varied, with 39.6% of people voting in person on Election Day, 30.7% voting in person before Election Day, and 29.0% voting by mail. ... The Census Bureau has collected voting and registration data since 1964 and has fielded the Voting and Registration Supplement to the CPS every two years.”Hide quote

   Voting methods also varied, with 39.6% of people voting in person on Election Day, 30.7% voting in person before Election Day, and 29.0% voting by mail. ... The Census Bureau has collected voting and registration data since 1964 and has fielded the Voting and Registration Supplement to the CPS every two years.

7. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2023-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (Numbers in thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 121916 49.5 18 31.8 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 7372 54.7 14.6 29.1 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 33798 53.6 15.3 30.3 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 43661 52.7 18.8 27.8 0.8 ... 65 years and over 37086 41 20.3 38.3 0.4 ... Region Northeast 21812 72.1 7.2 20 0.7 ... Midwest 27183 66.1 12.9 20.6 0.4 ... South 43538 50.7 34.9 13.5 0.9 ... West 29383 15.7 5.8 77.9 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2022 (Numbers in thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 121916 49.5 18 31.8 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 7372 54.7 14.6 29.1 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 33798 53.6 15.3 30.3 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 43661 52.7 18.8 27.8 0.8 ... 65 years and over 37086 41 20.3 38.3 0.4 ... Region Northeast 21812 72.1 7.2 20 0.7 ... Midwest 27183 66.1 12.9 20.6 0.4 ... South 43538 50.7 34.9 13.5 0.9 ... West 29383 15.7 5.8 77.9 0.7

8. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2021-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 154628 30.4 26 43 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13752 35.1 24.1 39.9 0.9 ... 25 to 44 years 47512 34.2 25.7 39.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 53646 31.8 28.6 38.9 0.6 ... 65 years and over 39718 22.2 23.6 53.6 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27353 45 12 42.6 0.5 ... Midwest 34210 42 19.9 37.6 0.6 ... South 57064 29.2 46.4 23.6 0.8 ... West 36001 10.1 10.2 79.1 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2020 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 154628 30.4 26 43 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13752 35.1 24.1 39.9 0.9 ... 25 to 44 years 47512 34.2 25.7 39.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 53646 31.8 28.6 38.9 0.6 ... 65 years and over 39718 22.2 23.6 53.6 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27353 45 12 42.6 0.5 ... Midwest 34210 42 19.9 37.6 0.6 ... South 57064 29.2 46.4 23.6 0.8 ... West 36001 10.1 10.2 79.1 0.7

9. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

   U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-04 · supports

   “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 122281 59.6 16.6 23.1 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 8726 60.9 15.1 22.5 1.4 ... 25 to 44 years 34587 64.5 14.2 20.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 45829 61.7 17.6 20.2 0.5 ... 65 years and over 33139 51.2 18.2 30 0.6 ... Region Northeast 21378 90.3 3.1 6.2 0.4 ... Midwest 27696 73.5 11.4 14.6 0.4 ... South 44723 56 33.3 9.7 0.9 ... West 28483 28.5 5.6 65.2 0.7”Hide quote

   Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2018 (In thousands) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... TOTAL 122281 59.6 16.6 23.1 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 8726 60.9 15.1 22.5 1.4 ... 25 to 44 years 34587 64.5 14.2 20.5 0.7 ... 45 to 64 years 45829 61.7 17.6 20.2 0.5 ... 65 years and over 33139 51.2 18.2 30 0.6 ... Region Northeast 21378 90.3 3.1 6.2 0.4 ... Midwest 27696 73.5 11.4 14.6 0.4 ... South 44723 56 33.3 9.7 0.9 ... West 28483 28.5 5.6 65.2 0.7

10. Early Voting and Mail Voting: Overview and Issues for Congress (IF11477)

    Congressional Research Service, 2026-07-10 · supports

    “According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of June 2026, all states and the District of Columbia (DC) allowed at least some voters to receive their ballots by mail and 37 states and DC offered some form of no-excuse mail voting. ... Federal law requires all states to allow certain military and overseas voters to use mail voting in federal elections. ... Figure 1. Reported Methods of Voting, 2004-2024 ... Source: CRS, using data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Notes: Respondents were asked whether they voted in person or by mail and, if the former, whether on or before Election Day. Some respondents who received their ballots by mail and returned them in person may have reported voting in person. ... State laws authorizing some soldiers to vote away from home were enacted in the early 1800s, for example, but no-excuse mail voting was not introduced until the late 1970s. ... For example, Oregon began using all-mail elections for all races in 2000 but approved a test of the process for local elections in 1981 and used it for select elections through the 1990s.”Hide quote

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), as of June 2026, all states and the District of Columbia (DC) allowed at least some voters to receive their ballots by mail and 37 states and DC offered some form of no-excuse mail voting. ... Federal law requires all states to allow certain military and overseas voters to use mail voting in federal elections. ... Figure 1. Reported Methods of Voting, 2004-2024 ... Source: CRS, using data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Notes: Respondents were asked whether they voted in person or by mail and, if the former, whether on or before Election Day. Some respondents who received their ballots by mail and returned them in person may have reported voting in person. ... State laws authorizing some soldiers to vote away from home were enacted in the early 1800s, for example, but no-excuse mail voting was not introduced until the late 1970s. ... For example, Oregon began using all-mail elections for all races in 2000 but approved a test of the process for local elections in 1981 and used it for select elections through the 1990s.

11. Table 18: States With Mostly Mail Elections (with Table 18a, year enacted and year implemented)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-07 · supports

    “Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... California ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 37 ... Colorado ... 2013 | 2014 | HB 1303 ... District of Columbia ... 2022 | 2023 ... Hawaii ... 2019 | 2020 | HB 1248 ... Nevada ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 321 ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative ... Utah ... 2012 (Counties permitted to choose) | 2019 (The first year all counties opted for mostly mail elections) | HB 172 ... Vermont ... (General elections only.) | 2021 | 2022 | SB 15 ... Washington ... 2011 | 2012 | HB 5124”Hide quote

    Eight states and Washington, D.C., allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state. ... California ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 37 ... Colorado ... 2013 | 2014 | HB 1303 ... District of Columbia ... 2022 | 2023 ... Hawaii ... 2019 | 2020 | HB 1248 ... Nevada ... 2021 | 2022 | AB 321 ... Oregon ... 1998 | 2000 | Citizen initiative ... Utah ... 2012 (Counties permitted to choose) | 2019 (The first year all counties opted for mostly mail elections) | HB 172 ... Vermont ... (General elections only.) | 2021 | 2022 | SB 15 ... Washington ... 2011 | 2012 | HB 5124

12. H.B. 300 Amendments to Election Law (Enrolled Copy), 2025 General Session

    Utah State Legislature, 2025 · complicates

    “for voting by mail: ... until 2029, permits a voter's identity to be verified using signature comparison, if the voter doesn't enter the digits described in the preceding paragraph; ... subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail; provides that a request to receive a ballot by mail remains in effect for eight years unless the voter takes certain action that results in termination of the request”Hide quote

    for voting by mail: ... until 2029, permits a voter's identity to be verified using signature comparison, if the voter doesn't enter the digits described in the preceding paragraph; ... subject to certain exceptions, provides that, beginning in 2029, a voter will not receive a ballot by mail unless the voter requests to receive a ballot by mail; provides that a request to receive a ballot by mail remains in effect for eight years unless the voter takes certain action that results in termination of the request

13. How We Voted in 2024 (Survey of the Performance of American Elections)

    MIT Election Data + Science Lab, 2025-07 · supports

    “Thirty-seven percent of Democrats reported voting by mail, compared to 24% of Republicans. ... In 2022, and then again in 2024, the gap closed somewhat, although this was primarily due to Democrats pulling back in the use of voting by mail rather than Republicans increasing their usage.”Hide quote

    Thirty-seven percent of Democrats reported voting by mail, compared to 24% of Republicans. ... In 2022, and then again in 2024, the gap closed somewhat, although this was primarily due to Democrats pulling back in the use of voting by mail rather than Republicans increasing their usage.

14. New Data: 17.7 Million Americans With Disabilities Voted in 2020, a Significant Increase Over 2016

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-07-07 · supports

    “More than 53% of people with disabilities voted by mail, compared to 42% of people without disabilities. Just 26% of people with disabilities and 31% of people without disabilities voted at a polling place on Election Day. ... 5% of people with disabilities experienced difficulties voting by mail, compared to 18% of those who voted at a polling place.”Hide quote

    More than 53% of people with disabilities voted by mail, compared to 42% of people without disabilities. Just 26% of people with disabilities and 31% of people without disabilities voted at a polling place on Election Day. ... 5% of people with disabilities experienced difficulties voting by mail, compared to 18% of those who voted at a polling place.

15. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “Looking across the columns, we see a stable estimate showing that VBM causes around a 2% increase (estimates range from 2.1 to 2.2%) in the share of the citizen voting-age population that turns out to vote.”Hide quote

    Looking across the columns, we see a stable estimate showing that VBM causes around a 2% increase (estimates range from 2.1 to 2.2%) in the share of the citizen voting-age population that turns out to vote.

16. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “In this specification, we estimate that the Democratic turnout share increases by 0.7% as a result of VBM. ... The inclusion of these trends attenuates the estimates dramatically, to only 0.1%, while also shrinking the standard errors. In the latter two specifications, which are our most precise specifications, even the upper bound of the 95% CI is only about 0.3%, a very small effect.”Hide quote

    In this specification, we estimate that the Democratic turnout share increases by 0.7% as a result of VBM. ... The inclusion of these trends attenuates the estimates dramatically, to only 0.1%, while also shrinking the standard errors. In the latter two specifications, which are our most precise specifications, even the upper bound of the 95% CI is only about 0.3%, a very small effect.

17. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share (PNAS 117(25):14052–14056)

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Thompson, Wu, Yoder and Hall), 2020-06-09 · supports

    “While the standard errors on these estimates are larger than the standard errors on the turnout share estimates, they continue to suggest modest or null effects, and they are nowhere near the magnitude necessary to represent a major, permanent electoral shift toward the Democratic party.”Hide quote

    While the standard errors on these estimates are larger than the standard errors on the turnout share estimates, they continue to suggest modest or null effects, and they are nowhere near the magnitude necessary to represent a major, permanent electoral shift toward the Democratic party.

18. How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election? (Yoder, Handan-Nader, Myers, Nowacki, Thompson, Wu, Yorgason and Hall)

    Stanford Democracy and Polarization Lab (working paper), 2021-06-25 · supports

    “Focusing on natural experiments in Texas and Indiana, we find that 65-year-olds turned out at nearly the same rate as 64-year-olds, despite the fact that only 65-year-olds could vote absentee without an excuse. Being just old enough to vote no-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout. ... In the first column, we see that the estimated increase in turnout for 65-year-olds, who are eligible to vote absentee without an excuse in Texas, is 0.02 percentage points—i.e., 2 basis points. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (with robust standard errors) for this effect is 0.26 percentage points.”Hide quote

    Focusing on natural experiments in Texas and Indiana, we find that 65-year-olds turned out at nearly the same rate as 64-year-olds, despite the fact that only 65-year-olds could vote absentee without an excuse. Being just old enough to vote no-excuse absentee did not substantially increase Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout. ... In the first column, we see that the estimated increase in turnout for 65-year-olds, who are eligible to vote absentee without an excuse in Texas, is 0.02 percentage points—i.e., 2 basis points. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (with robust standard errors) for this effect is 0.26 percentage points.

19. How Did Absentee Voting Affect the 2020 U.S. Election? (Yoder, Handan-Nader, Myers, Nowacki, Thompson, Wu, Yorgason and Hall)

    Stanford Democracy and Polarization Lab (working paper), 2021-06-25 · complicates

    “While rates of absentee voting increased by approximately 9.5 percentage points in Texas and 5.3 percentage points in Indiana, rates of early in person voting decreased by roughly 8.8 percentage points in Texas and 3.4 percentage points in Indiana”Hide quote

    While rates of absentee voting increased by approximately 9.5 percentage points in Texas and 5.3 percentage points in Indiana, rates of early in person voting decreased by roughly 8.8 percentage points in Texas and 3.4 percentage points in Indiana

20. Majority of Americans Continue to Back Expanded Early Voting, Voting by Mail, Voter ID

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “In April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 70% of Americans favored allowing any voter who wanted to cast a ballot via mail to do so. This included nearly half of Republicans (49%) and nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%). ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... According to Pew Research Center’s study of validated voters, voters in the 2024 presidential election were roughly equally likely to have voted in person on Election Day (34%), early in person (32%) or by mail (34%). ... In states with universal mail-in voting – like California, Colorado and Nevada, where ballots are mailed to all voters before the election – 73% favor allowing any voter to vote by mail, including 91% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. ... In states where voters can request an absentee ballot for any reason, but ballots aren’t automatically sent to them – like Florida, New York and Pennsylvania – 58% favor allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail. ... In these states, 45% favor allowing anyone to vote by mail, including 22% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.”Hide quote

    In April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, 70% of Americans favored allowing any voter who wanted to cast a ballot via mail to do so. This included nearly half of Republicans (49%) and nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%). ... Now, 58% of Americans support allowing voters to cast ballots by mail, including 32% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. ... According to Pew Research Center’s study of validated voters, voters in the 2024 presidential election were roughly equally likely to have voted in person on Election Day (34%), early in person (32%) or by mail (34%). ... In states with universal mail-in voting – like California, Colorado and Nevada, where ballots are mailed to all voters before the election – 73% favor allowing any voter to vote by mail, including 91% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. ... In states where voters can request an absentee ballot for any reason, but ballots aren’t automatically sent to them – like Florida, New York and Pennsylvania – 58% favor allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail. ... In these states, 45% favor allowing anyone to vote by mail, including 22% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.

21. Bipartisan Support for Early In-Person Voting, Voter ID, Election Day National Holiday

    Pew Research Center, 2024-02-07 · supports

    “The Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21 among 5,140 adults, also finds smaller majorities supporting allowing anyone to vote by mail if they want to (57%) ... Today, just 28% of Republicans say any voter should be allowed to vote by mail if they want to. Four years ago, 49% of Republicans said this. An overwhelming share of Democrats (84%) continue to say voting by mail should be available to all voters.”Hide quote

    The Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21 among 5,140 adults, also finds smaller majorities supporting allowing anyone to vote by mail if they want to (57%) ... Today, just 28% of Republicans say any voter should be allowed to vote by mail if they want to. Four years ago, 49% of Republicans said this. An overwhelming share of Democrats (84%) continue to say voting by mail should be available to all voters.

22. Confidence in Election Integrity Hides Deep Partisan Divide

    Gallup, 2022-11-04 · supports

    “More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.”Hide quote

    More than half of Americans have consistently expressed confidence in the accuracy of elections throughout Gallup's trend since 2004, but confidence was highest leading up to the 2004 presidential and 2006 midterm elections. ... In most election years since 2004, Gallup has found that Americans who self-identify with the political party of the incumbent president have expressed greater confidence in election accuracy -- with two exceptions, 2008 and 2020. In October 2008, during the global economic crisis, Republicans' and Democrats' confidence in the accuracy of that year's presidential election each fell to 57% ... In 2020, amid then-President Donald Trump's public questioning of the validity of mail voting in the upcoming election, Republicans' confidence in voting integrity dropped to a new low of 44%, while Democrats' confidence remained high, slightly higher (76%) than in the previous election year. The current 45 percentage points that separate Republicans' (40%) and Democrats' (85%) confidence represents the largest gap Gallup has recorded on this measure since 2004.

23. Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (CPS Voting and Registration Supplement)

    U.S. Census Bureau, 2025-04-30 · supports

    “Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (Numbers in thousands, Population 18 and Over) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 154308 39.6 30.7 29 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13150 43.9 28.2 26.3 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 46488 45.2 27.6 26.4 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 51354 41.3 32.8 25.4 0.5 ... 65 years and over 43317 30.2 32.4 36.8 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27119 58.8 19.3 21.3 0.5 ... Midwest 34554 52.5 28.8 18 0.7 ... South 57059 37.3 50.5 11.4 0.8 ... West 35575 16.1 9.6 73.5 0.8”Hide quote

    Table 14. Method of Voting, By Selected Characteristics: November 2024 (Numbers in thousands, Population 18 and Over) ... In-person on Election Day | In-person Before Election Day | By mail | Don't know or Refused ... Total 154308 39.6 30.7 29 0.7 ... Age 18 to 24 years 13150 43.9 28.2 26.3 1.5 ... 25 to 44 years 46488 45.2 27.6 26.4 0.8 ... 45 to 64 years 51354 41.3 32.8 25.4 0.5 ... 65 years and over 43317 30.2 32.4 36.8 0.6 ... Region Northeast 27119 58.8 19.3 21.3 0.5 ... Midwest 34554 52.5 28.8 18 0.7 ... South 57059 37.3 50.5 11.4 0.8 ... West 35575 16.1 9.6 73.5 0.8

24. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report, Figure 3

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

    “Source: Election Day turnout was calculated as F1b/F1a x 100 for all years. Mail turnout was calculated as (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100 for all years. In-person early turnout was calculated as F1f/F1a x 100 for all years. ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level (percentages for each mode of voting were calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode were included in the analysis), and because of this, percentages do not sum to 100%.”Hide quote

    Source: Election Day turnout was calculated as F1b/F1a x 100 for all years. Mail turnout was calculated as (F1d+F1g)/F1a x 100 for all years. In-person early turnout was calculated as F1f/F1a x 100 for all years. ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level (percentages for each mode of voting were calculated independently, and only states that reported data for a given mode were included in the analysis), and because of this, percentages do not sum to 100%.

25. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws 2016–2026, Table 1 (columns: no-excuse absentee or all-mail elections | excuse required | COVID-19 excuse added for 2020 election)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states”Hide quote

    November 2016 30 states and D.C. 20 states ... January 2020 32 states and D.C. 18 states ... November 2020 38 states and D.C. 2 states 10 states ... November 2022 35 states and D.C. 15 states ... November 2024 36 states and D.C. 14 states ... November 2026 (expected) 37 states and D.C. 13 states

26. American Trends Panel Wave 176, August 2025: Final Topline

    Pew Research Center, 2025-08-22 · supports

    “Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online ... ML Allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to Aug 4-10, 2025 34 24 18 24 1 Jan 16-21, 2024 35 23 15 26 1 Apr 7-12, 2020 44 26 13 16 1”Hide quote

    Note: This survey was conducted primarily online, with some interviews conducted by live telephone. ... American Trends Panel surveys conducted between October 2016 and June 2024 were conducted fully online ... ML Allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to Aug 4-10, 2025 34 24 18 24 1 Jan 16-21, 2024 35 23 15 26 1 Apr 7-12, 2020 44 26 13 16 1

Ballot Receipt Deadlines, Late Ballots and Counting Speed

1. Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots

   National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-25 · supports

   “Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.”Hide quote

   Thirty-five states require absentee/mail ballots returned by mail to be received on or before Election Day. Fifteen states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C., will accept and count a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day but postmarked on or before (sometimes only before) Election Day. ... In July 2026, a district court judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction on the law requiring absentee ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. ... Under the injunction, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of an election. ... North Dakota HB 1165 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for absentee ballots to be received before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Ohio SB 293 (2025) changed the receipt deadline for most absentee ballots to the close of polls on Election Day. ... The bill maintains a carve-out for military and overseas voters’ ballots, which will still be accepted if received within the four-day post-election period. Utah HB 300 (2025) required ballots to be received by the election officer by 8 p.m. on Election Day. ... Alaska ... Must be received within 10 days if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... California ... Must be received no later than seven days after Election Day. ... District of Columbia ... Must be received within ten days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Illinois ... Must be received within 14 days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Kansas ... Must be received by the third day after an election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Maryland ... Must be received within 10 days after the election by 10 a.m. if postmarked on or before Election Day. Massachusetts ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Mississippi ... Must be received within five business days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Nevada ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the fourth day following the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... New Jersey ... Must be received within 144 hours (six days) of the close of the polls if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... New York ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Oregon ... Must be received within seven days of the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Texas ... Must be received by 5 p.m. on the day after the election if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Virginia ... Must be received before noon on the third day after the election if postmarked by Election Day. ... Washington ... Must be received no later than the day before certification, which is 21 days after a general election and 14 days after a primary if postmarked on or before Election Day. West Virginia ... Must be received before the canvass (which begins on the fifth day after the election) if postmarked on or before Election Day. ... Ballot Receipt Deadlines for Military and Overseas Voters ... Twenty states require ballots from military and overseas voters to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Thirty states and Washington, D.C. accept at least some military and overseas ballots received after Election Day.

2. Watson v. Republican National Committee, 609 U.S. 672 (2026), slip opinion

   Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-06-29 · supports

   “Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.”Hide quote

   Mississippi is one of roughly 30 States that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. ... State legislatures may have used an election-day deadline for any number of reasons unrelated to federal requirements. For example, they may have shared plaintiffs' view that an election-day deadline avoids the appearance of fraud from late-arriving ballots. ... Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by election day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results. ... As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts. ... The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.

3. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (pp. 14–15 and Overview Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 47,629,437 were reported as being counted and 584,463 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 98.8% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.2% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Overview Table 1: Mail Voting in the 2024 General Election ... % Turnout by Mail ... Arizona [3] 74.7% 3,582,082 2,859,348 79.8% 2,816,885 98.5% ... Georgia [6] 5.1% 327,241 273,512 83.6% 268,751 98.3% ... Michigan 35.4% 2,213,167 2,081,265 94.0% 2,017,704 96.9% ... Nevada 44.1% 2,069,339 669,445 32.4% 656,140 98.0% ... North Carolina 5.2% 451,176 307,185 68.1% 298,269 97.1% ... Pennsylvania [20] 27.3% 2,204,273 1,952,372 88.6% 1,933,102 99.0% ... Wisconsin [24] 16.6% 614,367 575,257 93.6% 572,434 99.5% ... Returned ballot envelope did not have required postmark 0.9%

4. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2022 Comprehensive Report (p. 13 and Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2023-06-29 · supports

   “Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%”Hide quote

   Of the mail ballots that were returned by voters, 35,718,700 were reported as being counted and 549,824 were reported as being rejected, for a count rate of 97.4% of the mail ballots that were returned and a rejection rate of 1.5% of the mail ballots that were returned. ... Other reason not listed 32.7% ... Ballot had a non-matching or incomplete signature 26.9% ... not received on time/missed the deadline 23.1%

5. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report (Table 2)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2021-08 · supports

   “Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%”Hide quote

   Other common reasons for rejection included that the voter had already voted in person (13.5%), the ballot was received after the state’s deadline for submitting a mailed ballot (12.1%), and there was no voter signature on the mailed ballot or the mailed ballot envelope (12.1%). ... Table 2. The Most Common Reason for Rejecting Mailed Ballots Was for a Non-Matching Signature ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 12.1%

6. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2018 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2019-06 · supports

   “"Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%”Hide quote

   "Other" reason given 34.9% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 26.9% ... Non-matching signature 15.8%

7. The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

   U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2017-06 · supports

   “Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%”Hide quote

   Rejected (total) 1.0% ... Non-matching signature 27.5% ... Ballot not received on time/missed deadline 23.1% ... No voter signature 20.0%

8. More mail ballots are arriving late this cycle, and they’re getting tossed (New York Times, reprinted)

   The Philadelphia Inquirer (Adam Sella and Nick Corasaniti, New York Times), 2026-08-31 · complicates

   “The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.”Hide quote

   The rate at which mail votes have been rejected for arriving late has ticked up in primaries this year and general elections last year in roughly a dozen states ... In Wisconsin ... lateness accounted for about 5,000 rejected mail ballots in the spring primary this year, or 78% of all tossed ballots. During the last spring election, in 2023, the figure was roughly 2,300, or 47% of all tossed votes. ... In Michigan’s primary earlier this month, more than 10,000 mail ballots were rejected for arriving after the state’s deadline of 8 p.m. on Election Day. That is nearly double the number of ballots rejected in 2024. In Washington, the number of late-arriving mail ballots increased from about 16,000 to more than 20,000 in the same period. ... The Postal Service further slowed down mail in 2024 when it implemented a centralized system that postmarks mail when it reaches regional centers, not when it first enters the mail stream. The delay has particularly affected mail voting, especially in states that rely on postmarks to determine if a ballot is valid. ... In a statement, the Postal Service countered claims that the agency has become unreliable by noting that more than 95% of mail ballots have arrived on time in recent elections. ... In Washington’s primary earlier this year, 75% of rejected mail ballots were tossed because they arrived too late.

9. Was a large percentage of votes received after Election Day in Nevada in 2024?

   The Nevada Independent (Eric Neugeboren), 2025-01-31 · supports

   “Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.”Hide quote

   Less than 1 percent of the ballots cast in Nevada's two largest counties in the 2024 general election were received after Election Day. About 9,500 Clark County mail ballots and 2,400 ballots in Washoe County were received post-Election Day out of the nearly 1.3 million ballots cast in both areas. Nevada law allows any mail ballot to be received up to four days after Election Day, as long as it is postmarked by Election Day. ... Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) was losing to Republican Sam Brown on election night, but took the lead the following night once the roughly 50,000 Clark County mail ballots received on Election Day were counted. Rosen ultimately won Clark and Washoe counties by margins far exceeding the number of ballots received post-Election Day.

10. How long did it take to count the vote in 2024?

    MIT Election Data + Science Lab (Samuel Baltz), 2024-12-06 · supports

    “A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour”Hide quote

    A MEDSL report found that “states were slower to report overall vote counts if they had large volumes of mail ballots, prohibited preprocessing mail ballots, and allowed mail ballots to arrive after Election Day.” ... States in the west and southwest — especially Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and Alaska (not visualized) — stand out as having a larger proportion of votes left to count by the end of 24 hours. Mississippi, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Michigan were also slower to report ... most large jumps due to California incrementally reporting about a third of its votes over the course of the month after Election Day. ... Texas and Florida stand out as states that successfully counted an enormous number of votes (both well over ten million) within about a day ... every state had counted and reported more than 75% of votes cast for either presidential candidate within about 5 days. ... Nationally, it took only about 2 hours to count a majority of the vote, and only about 3 hours to count 75% of it. ... State Hours in 2020 Hours in 2024 Factor increase 2024/2020 Arizona 73 147 2.01 Georgia 18 5 0.28 Michigan 17 9 0.53 Nevada 159 51 0.32 North Carolina 3 6 2.00 Pennsylvania 49 8 0.16 Wisconsin 8 9 1.13 Table 1: The number of hours to count 95% of the two-party presidential vote in seven battleground states from 2020 and 2024. The numbers may be overstated by the duration of the media reporting process, plus up to half an hour

11. Table 16: When Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing and Counting Can Begin

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-09-15 · supports

    “Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.”Hide quote

    Forty-four states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots prior to the election ... Six states permit election officials to begin processing absentee/mail ballots on Election Day, but prior to the closing of the polls: Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. ... None of these states allow the results of scanned ballots to be viewed or released before the close of polls on Election Day. ... Arizona ... Upon receipt. ... Georgia ... Verification of driver's license or state identification number conducted upon receipt, and further processing can begin at 8 a.m. on the third Monday before Election Day. ... Michigan ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. Jurisdictions with at least 5,000 people may begin further processing eight days before Election Day ... Nevada ... Signature verification conducted upon receipt. ... North Carolina ... At county board of elections meetings, beginning the fifth Tuesday before Election Day. ... Pennsylvania ... 7 a.m. on Election Day. ... Wisconsin ... After the polls open on Election Day.

12. Looking back to 2020 for a Guide to How Fast the Votes Will Be Reported in 2024

    Election Updates (Charles Stewart III, MIT), 2024-10-30 · complicates

    “In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.”Hide quote

    In the statistical analysis performed in the MEDSL report, the failure to pre-process did slow down the count, on average, but by a small amount. Within four hours of the polls closing, the average state with no pre-processing had reported 63% of its votes, compared to 78% that didn’t restrict pre-processing. At the twenty-four-hour point, the gap between states had essentially disappeared. In a later academic paper written by me and two MEDSL colleagues, we also found that states with more mail ballots reported at a slower pace. However, the effect of mail-ballot load also declined over time. ... In 2020, seventeen states prohibited processing of mail ballots before Election Day. In 2024, that number declined to seven.

13. Electoral Integrity Global Report 2025 (PEI 11.0)

    Electoral Integrity Project, 2025-07 · supports

    “There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.”Hide quote

    There were noticeable declines in electoral integrity scores in the United States during the 2024 Presidential election, after some improvements in the 2022 midterms. ... The Perceptions of Electoral Integrity dataset suggests that the counting, results and procedural aspects of the election were strong (see Figure 19), a notable rebound in light of the challenges that occurred surrounding Trump’s failure to accept the results of the 2020 election. The main areas of weakness were electoral boundaries, media and finance.

14. Nevada prepares for Supreme Court ruling on mail ballots

    Pahrump Valley Times, 2026-04-22 · supports

    “Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.”Hide quote

    Ballots received by Clark and Washoe counties after that day represented about 2 percent of the overall mail ballots processed.

15. Evolution of Absentee/Mail Voting Laws, 2016–2026 (Table 5)

    National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026-08-26 · supports

    “Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.”Hide quote

    Many states enacted policies allowing ballots to be received after Election Day during the pandemic, but since then, states have slowly moved in the opposite direction of requiring Election Day receipt for most absentee/mail ballots. As a result, the count of states requiring Election Day receipt for the November 2026 election is expected to be roughly the same as it was in November 2016, despite a dip in that count around the peak of the pandemic. ... Date/Election Election Day receipt Post-Election Day receipt November 2016 37 states and D.C. 13 states January 2020 35 states 15 states and D.C. November 2020 29 states 21 states and D.C. November 2022 31 states 19 states and D.C. November 2024 32 states 18 states and D.C. November 2026 (expected) 35 states 15 states and D.C.

16. Election Administration and Voting Survey 2024 Comprehensive Report (Table 1)

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2025-06-30 · supports

    “Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.”Hide quote

    Table 1. Most Common Reason For Mail Ballot Rejection Was a Non-Matching Or Incomplete Signature ... Ballot envelope had a non-matching or incomplete signature 40.7% ... Other reason not listed 18.1% ... Ballot was not received on time/missed the deadline 17.8% ... Voter already cast another ballot that was accepted 11.1% ... Ballot envelope did not have a voter signature 10% ... Casewise deletion was used at the state level in calculating national percentages, and because of this, percentages do not total 100%.