As the United States barrels toward another tumultuous election season, the rules governing how Americans cast their votes and how political parties spend their funds are under intense scrutiny at the nation’s highest court. In a pair of cases with far-reaching implications, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to set a nationwide deadline for mail-in ballots and whether to erase decades-old limits on coordinated party spending in federal elections. Both debates, fueled by partisan divides and shifting public confidence, could fundamentally reshape the way Americans participate in democracy.
For Derrin Robinson, the nonpartisan clerk of Harney County, Oregon, the evolution of voting methods is personal. Robinson has overseen elections in this vast, rural county—larger than Massachusetts—for over three decades. Oregon has conducted elections exclusively by mail since 2000, a system Robinson believes works well for his 6,000 registered voters. “As you can tell, I’m not an advocate for going back,” Robinson told Stateline, reflecting on the days when voters braved treacherous weather to reach far-flung polling places.
Yet, not everyone shares Robinson’s confidence in mail-in voting. A Republican lawmaker in Oregon has introduced legislation to end the state’s mail voting law, and activists have gathered thousands of signatures for a ballot measure to ban the practice. Across the country, the future of mail-in voting is clouded by uncertainty. Former President Donald Trump, a vocal critic, has repeatedly claimed—without evidence—that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. In August, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, “THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!!” He vowed to issue an executive order to bring “HONESTY” to the elections, but no such order has materialized, according to Stateline.
The debate is not just rhetorical. In November 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could require all mail ballots to arrive by Election Day, ending the so-called “grace periods” in 16 states and the District of Columbia. These grace periods currently allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive days later—a buffer that some argue protects voters from postal delays. The stakes are high: in the 2024 election, 46.8 million Americans, or about 30% of voters, cast their ballots by mail, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Ohio is on the front lines of this battle. The Republican-controlled legislature recently passed a bill eliminating its four-day grace period for mail ballots, requiring most to be received by the close of polls on Election Day. Only military and overseas ballots would be exempt. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who spearheaded the change, argued that the new deadline would minimize confusion and prevent disputes in close races. LaRose also cited a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice warning that Ohio’s previous law conflicted with federal requirements and could invite costly litigation.
During the 2024 election, 8,335 mail ballots in Ohio—0.8% of those returned—weren’t counted. Nationwide, the figure was 584,463, or 1.2%. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, nearly 18% of rejected mail ballots were late arrivals. For voters like Debra Shankland, a poll worker from Brecksville, Ohio, the changes are concerning. “I do know a lot of people are very leery of the mail and I am, too,” Shankland told Stateline, noting past experiences with mail theft and the limited availability of drop boxes in the state.
The reliability of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has also come under scrutiny. After years of declining performance and controversial operational changes under then-Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, the USPS reported substantial improvements during the 2024 election. According to an Inspector General report, the postal service delivered 99.88% of ballots to election officials within seven days and 97.73% within three days. Still, the USPS acknowledged that varying state laws and deadlines can create confusion for voters.
The Supreme Court case at the heart of the debate involves a challenge by the Republican National Committee to Mississippi’s law, which allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. The case raises thorny questions: Does putting a ballot in the mail count as casting it, or must it be in the hands of election officials? And should Congress or the states set the rules?
Not all Republicans agree on the answer. Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, who is defending the grace period, told The Dispatch newspaper, “the policy decision should be made at the state level.” West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner echoed that sentiment, stating, “the grace period is working just fine the way it is right now.” Warner warned against federal intervention, saying, “Mountaineers are always free and they’re not going to take kindly to an executive order by the president changing how we’re going to do our elections.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also weighing a Republican-led effort, backed by Trump’s administration, to overturn a 2001 decision that upheld federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The case revisits a law more than 50 years old, designed to prevent large donors from evading individual contribution caps by funneling unlimited sums through party committees.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the GOP now argue that the spending limits should be struck down, in line with recent Supreme Court decisions such as the landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. According to the Associated Press, the lawsuit was filed in Ohio in 2022 by Republican committees for House and Senate candidates, joined by then-Senator JD Vance and then-Representative Steve Chabot.
In 2025, coordinated party spending limits for Senate races range from $127,200 in small states to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with one representative and $63,600 elsewhere. Chief Justice John Roberts leads a conservative majority that has already upended several campaign finance restrictions. After the Trump administration joined Republicans in challenging the law, the justices appointed Roman Martinez to defend it. Martinez, an experienced Supreme Court advocate, has argued the case may be moot since the FEC now agrees the law is unconstitutional and won’t enforce it.
Democrats have called on the court to uphold the law, arguing that the limits are essential to prevent wealthy donors from exerting outsized influence on candidates through party committees. The outcome could further loosen the rules on money in politics, already transformed by Citizens United and related decisions.
Back in Oregon, Robinson says he personally wouldn’t mind if the mail ballot grace period disappeared, noting that more ballots are arriving during the grace window than ever before. Still, he’s clear about his role: “But we do what we’re told and follow the Constitution,” he said to Stateline.
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on both voting deadlines and campaign spending, the 2026 midterm elections could look very different. The decisions will test not only the mechanics of American democracy but also the public’s trust in the fairness and accessibility of the system itself.
