ICYMI: RightCount Chairs in National Review…

“The Court should let states do their job and restrain the activist impulses of the federal government”

 In case you missed it, two former battleground state, Republican governors made a timely argument in National Review this morning ahead of next week’s Supreme Court hearing in Watson v. RNC.

The justices will decide whether federal law requires not only that voters cast their ballots by Election Day, but also that election officials receive the ballots by then. If the justices agree that it does, laws in more than a dozen states could be upended. Former Governors Pat McCrory (NC) and Mark Schweiker (PA), co-chairs of RightCount, lay out a clear case for why the Court should reaffirm state authority over election administration — particularly as it relates to ballot receipt deadlines.

Below are notable excerpts from their op-ed.

The Supreme Court Should Let States Run Their Elections
March 19, 2026

“This month, the Supreme Court will review Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case that may quietly but profoundly reshape how elections are administered across the country. At issue is whether 100-year-old (and older) federal statutes can now be read to override numerous recent states’ laws that allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted shortly afterward. In 2024, the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal law preempts Mississippi’s ballot-receipt deadline and sharply curtails state discretion. The Court should reverse that ruling.

“For most of the nation’s history, election administration has been a core responsibility of the states. The Constitution reflects that design, granting states primary authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, subject to limited federal guardrails. States have used that flexibility to tailor election rules to local geography, population density, and voter needs, particularly in large, rural, or military-heavy states. The decision departs from that settled understanding by casting off the traditional conservative tenant of federalism that states are better at making decisions about themselves than the federal government is.

[…]

“It’s important to put the Fifth Circuit ruling in context. The decision relies on 100-year-old federal statutes to overturn laws passed by 16 states since the 1970s. In trying to nationalize when ballots must be received, the Fifth Circuit overrules the judgments of duly elected state legislators in a manner that would further erode the notion of a non-political judiciary.

“Upholding the Fifth Circuit’s ruling would not bring uniform clarity — it would invite nationwide chaos. States would have to decide whether to have different rules for federal and state elections. Depending on timing, states would have to amend ballot-receipt deadlines weeks or even days prior to ballots being mailed, creating confusion for voters and administrators alike. It may also call into question long-standing federal and state laws designed to ensure that ballots cast by military and overseas voters are counted, potentially undermining one of the most long-standing, bipartisan commitments in American election law.

“As former governors of battleground states, we also see the real-world political consequences of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. Republicans have made meaningful progress in recent election cycles encouraging our voters to use mail-in ballots where state law permits, particularly older voters, rural residents, and military families. That progress reflects a recognition that voting methods are practical tools, not partisan ideology.

“Overturning the Fifth Circuit would alleviate the potential for administrative chaos and perpetuate the constitutional balance that has served the country well for generations. The Court should let states do their job and restrain the activist impulses of the federal government.”

To read the op-ed in its entirety, please visit National Review’s website.

###