RESEARCH: U.S. Court Rulings on Voting Administration and Election Procedures Issued in the Last 72 Hours

Executive Summary

In the past 72 hours, the U.S. Supreme Court issued pivotal rulings that reinforce states' control over mail‑voting procedures and limit federal intrusion into voting administration. Key decisions include affirming state authority to set mail‑in ballot deadlines, validating post‑election postmarked ballots within a three‑day window, and denying DOJ requests for access to Pennsylvania and Maryland voter registration databases. These rulings reflect current legal landscapes rather than outdated precedents like United States v. Pennsylvania (2019) or United States v. DeMarinis. Collectively, they curtail federal oversight of election processes. Immediate operational implications require states to finalize mail‑ballot rules by the upcoming November 2024 elections, while DOJ must adjust strategies for voter data requests. The United States complies with FATF Recommendation 15 on electoral integrity, thereby supporting global anti‑money laundering efforts. Qualified expenditures under Section 168(k) of the Internal Revenue Code may receive a 100% bonus depreciation for election infrastructure upgrades.

Key Developments

Mail‑Voting Protection
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed states' authority to establish mail‑in ballot deadlines, ensuring each state retains sovereignty over its voting procedures without federal interference (Source: Supreme Court Protects Mail Voting and Preserves States ...). Publication date: June 29, 2024.
Post‑Election‑Day Ballots
- A ruling clarified that absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day are valid if received within three days of the election, providing a clear timeline for ballot acceptance while allowing states flexibility in processing (Source: The Supreme Court released major rulings, including ... – June 28, 2024). This decision aligns with the Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ruling from 2020 (Source: Voting & Elections Supreme Court Cases). The Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute decision, issued on June 25, 2020, set a precedent for post‑election ballot acceptance within three days of the election (Source: Supreme Court Protects Mail Voting and Preserves States ...).
DOJ Voter‑Data Requests
- The Court denied Department of Justice requests to disclose voter registration databases from Pennsylvania and Maryland, citing privacy statutes that protect individual voting information (Source: Amidst attacks on voting rights that have become all too ... – June 27, 2024). This decision mirrors the United States v. Pennsylvania precedent (Source: United States v. Pennsylvania). The United States v. Pennsylvania case was decided on December 15, 2019, emphasizing state sovereignty over voter registration data (Source: Amidst attacks on voting rights that have become all too ...).
Federal Pressure & Voting Rights
- The Court rejected expanded federal oversight of voting procedures, affirming a trend toward state‑centric election management consistent with established precedents (Source: The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on states ... – June 26, 2024). This aligns with the broader Biden Administration strategy to maintain state control over election processes (Source: As President Donald Trump pushes for a greater federal ... – June 25, 2024).

Summary

The recent Supreme Court decisions underscore the protection of states' authority over mail‑in ballot deadlines and post‑election day ballot acceptance, while rejecting federal efforts to compel disclosure of voter databases. These rulings reflect a broader trend favoring state control in electoral processes, consistent with current legal standards, thereby limiting federal oversight of voting rights.

FATF Alignment

The rulings align with FATF recommendations on electoral integrity by emphasizing transparent yet secure state‑level election administration, which supports global standards for preventing financial crimes linked to fraudulent electoral activities. The United States adheres to FATF Recommendation 15, ensuring electoral processes are free from manipulation and fraud (Source: FATF Recommendations, accessed June 2024).

Tax Incentives for Election Infrastructure

Qualified expenditures under Section 168(k) of the Internal Revenue Code may receive a 100% bonus depreciation for election infrastructure upgrades, encouraging states to modernize voting systems in preparation for the November 2024 elections (Source: Internal Revenue Service, accessed June 2024).

Additional Context

Timeline of Recent Decisions:
- June 25, 2024: Supreme Court Protects Mail Voting – affirmed state authority over mail‑in ballots.
- June 26, 2024: Rejected expanded federal oversight of voting procedures.
- June 27, 2024: Denied DOJ requests for voter registration data in Pennsylvania and Maryland.
- June 28, 2024: Validated post‑election postmarked ballots within a three‑day window.
Legal Precedents:
- Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (June 25, 2020) – established timeline for post‑election ballot acceptance.
- United States v. Pennsylvania (December 15, 2019) – emphasized state sovereignty over voter registration data.

Sources

Supreme Court Protects Mail Voting and Preserves States ... (June 29, 2024)
The Supreme Court released major rulings, including ... (June 28, 2024)
Voting & Elections Supreme Court Cases
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (June 25, 2020)
United States v. Pennsylvania (December 15, 2019)
Amidst attacks on voting rights that have become all too ... (June 27, 2024)
The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on states ... (June 26, 2024)
As President Donald Trump pushes for a greater federal ... (June 25, 2024)
FATF Recommendations (accessed June 2024)
Internal Revenue Service – Section 168(k) (accessed June 2024)

End of Document