Watson v. Republican National Committee · ¶105

Second, the majority highlights that a one-Justice concurrence and a one-Justice dissent did not read Maddox as foreclosing post-election-day ballot receipt. Ante, at 19. But separate writings are “generally not the best source of legal advice” on the scope of a court’s holding, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard Col lege, 600 U. S. 181, 230 (2023), and that principle is particularly applicable here. Neither separate opinion discussed federal law at all, and the concurrence objected to post-election-day ballot receipt even more strongly than did the majority opinion. See 116 Mont., at 229, 149 P. 2d, at 117 (Morris, J., concurring) (predicting that accepting ballots after election day would be “almost universally condemned”); id., at 229–232, 149 P. 2d, at 117–119 (Erickson, J., dissenting in part).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.