Watson v. Republican National Committee · ¶46

Plaintiffs’ efforts to explain UOCAVA fare no better. Plaintiffs initially argued that UOCAVA recognizes States’ authority to set ballot-receipt deadlines before but not after election day. See Brief for Respondent Libertarian Party of Mississippi 42 (arguing that Congress tied the ballot-receipt deadline to state law “because at least one state at the time required absentee ballots to be received before Election Day”); Brief for Republican Respondents 43–44 (similar). But UOCAVA’s text draws no such distinction, and by the time oral argument rolled around, plaintiffs had seemingly abandoned the point. Instead, they stressed that UOCAVA also applies to other elections, like primaries, that the election-day statutes do not govern. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 79– 87. And that, the argument goes, is the reason why UOCAVA incorporates state ballot-receipt deadlines.

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