Amicus Curiae Brief — Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State, Petitioner v. Republican National Committee, et al.

Supreme Court briefJan 9, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 24-1260

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

________________________

MICHAEL WATSON,

MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE,

Petitioner,

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________

On Writ of Certiorari from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

REPRESENTING MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

________________________

P. Benjamin Duke

Counsel of Record

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

30 Hudson Yards

New York, NY 10001

(212) 841-1000

pduke@cov.com

Leah J. Tulin

Justin Lam

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE

777 6th Street NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 650-6397

Noah S. Goldberg

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 662-6000

Andrew B. Garber

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE

120 Broadway, Suite 1750

New York, NY 10271

(646) 292-8310

Counsel for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 5

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 9

The Fifth Circuit’s Decision Must Be Reversed

to Avoid Exacerbating the Steep Barriers to

Voting Faced by U.S. Military and Overseas

Voters. ................................................................... 9

A. Military and Overseas Voters Face

Unique Hurdles to Exercising Their

Fundamental Right to Vote. ..........................9

B. The Fifth Circuit’s Erroneous

Interpretation of the Term “Election”

Would Arbitrarily Sweep Away State

Statutes Designed to Alleviate Obstacles

to Voting Faced by U.S. Military and

Overseas Voters. ...........................................17

II. Federal Statutory History Demonstrates

That Congress Did Not Intend to Preempt

States’ Efforts to Protect Military and

Overseas Voters’ Right to Vote........................... 22

A. Congress Has Long Been Aware of

States’ Special Rules for Ballots Cast by

Military and Overseas Voters and Has

Done Nothing to Displace or Interfere

with Them. ....................................................23

B. This Court Should Not Disturb

Congress’s Consistent Choice to Respect

State Ballot Receipt Deadlines. ...................26

III. With Election Deadlines Quickly Approaching for

Military and Overseas Voters, the Court Should

Decide This Case as Soon as Practicable. .......... 33

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 34

APPENDIX: List of Individual Amici Curiae .......... 1a

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona,

Inc.,

570 U.S. 1 (2013) ......................................... 23, 31

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats,

Inc.,

489 U.S. 141 (1989) ..................................... 23, 32

Dep’t of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Hous. Serv.

v. Kirtz,

601 U.S. 42 (2024) ............................................. 32

Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis,

584 U.S. 497 (2018) ..................................... 27, 32

Foster v. Love,

522 U.S. 67 (1997) ............................................. 23

Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t,

543 U.S. 335 (2005) ........................................... 27

Roudebush v. Hartke,

405 U.S. 15 (1972) ............................................. 23

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,

464 U.S. 238 (1984) ........................................... 23

Voting Integrity Project, Inc. v. Bomer,

199 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000) ............................. 26

Statutes

2 U.S.C. § 1 ......................................................... 5, 25

2 U.S.C. § 7 ......................................................... 5, 25

52 U.S.C. § 20302 ................................................... 31

52 U.S.C. § 20303 ......................................... 8, 30, 31

52 U.S.C. § 20304 ................................................... 31

1866 Nev. Stat. 215 ................................................ 25

1933 Wash. Sess. Laws Extraordinary Sess.

102-03 ................................................................ 26

Act of Sept. 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 753 ......................... 27

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.081 ........................................ 18

Cal. Elec. Code § 3020 ............................................ 20

Cal. Elec. Code § 3106 ............................................ 20

Cal. Elec. Code § 3116 ............................................ 20

Cal. Pol. Code § 1360 (1923) .................................. 26

Kan. Stat. § 25-1106 (1929) ................................... 26

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 54, § 91C ..................... 18

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 54, § 95 ........................ 18

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 54, § 99 ........................ 18

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 10135 (1933) ................................ 26

Mont. Code Ann. § 13-21-206 ................................. 18

N.Y. Election Law § 10-114.................................... 18

Neb. Comp. Stat. § 2007 (1921) ............................. 26

Neb. Comp. Stat. § 2009 (1921) ............................. 26

Neb. Comp. Stat. § 2011 (1921) ............................. 26

Neb. Comp. Stat. § 2035 (1921) ............................. 26

Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.05....................................... 21

Ohio Rev. Code § 3511.11....................................... 21

Pa. Act of July 2, 1839, ch. 6 .................................. 25

Pa. Act of June 3, 1937, Pub. L. 1333, No.

320 ..................................................................... 26

Pa. Act of Mar. 29, 1813, ch. 171, 1813 Pa.

Laws 213 ........................................................... 24

Pub. L. No. 78-277, 58 Stat. 136 (1944) ................. 28

Pub. L. No. 84-296, 69 Stat. 584 (1955) ................. 29

Pub. L. No. 94-203, 89 Stat. 1142 (1976) ............... 29

Pub. L. No. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190 (2009) ............. 31

R.I. Acts and Resolves, May Sess., 1864, ch.

529 (1864) .......................................................... 25

Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 86.007 .......................... 18, 22

Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 101.057 .............................. 18

Utah Code Ann. § 20A-16-404 ............................... 18

Utah Code Ann. § 20A-16-408 ......................... 18, 21

Legislative Materials

A.B. 37 (Cal. 2021) ................................................. 20

A.B. 860 (Cal. 2020)................................................ 20

H.B. 62, Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2014)............................... 19

H.B. 300, 66th Legis., 2025 Gen. Sess.

(Utah 2025) ....................................................... 21

H.B. 929, 85th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2017)........... 21

H.B. 1151, 85th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2017)......... 21

H.B. 1165, 69th Leg. (N.D. 2025)........................... 21

H.B. 1406, Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2024) ........................ 22

H.R. 4249, 91st Cong. (1970) ................................. 30

H.R. Rep. No. 77-2363 (1942)........................... 27, 28

H.R. Rep. No. 99-765 (1986)................................... 30

S. 1415, 111th Cong. (as reported to Senate,

July 16, 2009) .................................................... 32

S.B. 293, 136th Gen. Assemb. (Ohio 2025)............ 21

S. Comm. on Elections and Constitutional

Amendments, Bill Analysis: S.B 29 (Cal.

2013) .................................................................. 20

vii

S. Journal, 68th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess.

(Colo. 2011) ........................................................ 19

S. Rsrch Ctr., Bill Analysis: H.B. 929 (Tex.

May 17, 2017) .................................................... 22

Soldier Voting: Hearings before the Comm.

on Election of President, Vice President,

and Representatives in Congress on H.R.

3436, 78th Cong. (1943) .................................... 28

Voting in Time of War by Members of the

Land and Naval Forces: Hearings before

a Subcommittee of the Committee on

Privileges and Elections on S. 1285, 78th

Cong. (1943) ................................................ 28, 29

Why the Wait? Unpacking California’s

Untimely Election Counting Process,

Hearing before the Committee on House

Administration, 109th Cong. 30 (Apr. 29,

2025) ............................................................ 10, 14

Other Authorities

Camilla Rodriguez Guzman, Serving in the

Military Shouldn’t Mean It’s Harder to

Vote, Nat’l Conf. of State Legis. (Aug. 26,

2025) .................................................................. 14

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., 2020 Overseas

Citizen Population Analysis Report

(2021) ................................................................. 13

viii

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., 2020 PostElection Voting Survey: Active Duty

Military (2021) .................................................. 11

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., 2024-25 Voting

Assistance Guide (Aug. 2023) ..................... 14, 16

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., 2020 Report to

Congress (July 2020) ......................................... 12

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., 2022 PostElection Voting Survey: Active Duty

Military (ADM) (2023) .................... 10, 11, 12, 13

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., How to Vote

Absentee in the Military .............................. 12, 13

Fed. Voter Assistance Prog., State of the

Overseas Voter (2022)........................................ 10

George Frederick Miller, Absentee Voters

and Suffrage Laws (1948) ................................. 24

Internal Revenue Serv., U.S. citizens and

residents abroad - Filing requirements ............ 10

Joseph Clark, Researchers Set Out to Tackle

Voting Challenges of Military Members,

DOD News (Feb. 12, 2024) ............................... 11

Josiah Henry Benton, Voting in the Field: A

Forgotten Chapter of the Civil War

(1915) ........................................................... 24, 25

Mem. of Steve Huefner to Uniform Military

Services and Overseas Civilian Absentee

Voters Act Drafting Committee and

Observers (Feb. 19, 2010) ................................. 19

Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., 2026 State

Primary Election Dates (Dec. 8, 2025) ............. 33

Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., Table 11: Receipt

and Postmark Deadlines for

Absentee/Mail Ballots (Dec. 24, 2025) ............. 17

Paul G. Steinbicker, Absentee Voting in the

United States, 32 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 898

(Oct. 1938) ......................................................... 26

U.S. Dep’t of Just., Cases Raising Claims

Under the Uniformed and Overseas

Citizen Absentee Voting Act (Mar. 24,

2022) .................................................................. 33

U.S. Dep’t of Def., 2023 Demographics:

Profile of the Military Community (2023) ........ 11

Unif. Mil. and Overseas Voters Act (Unif. L.

Comm’n Final Act Sept. 30, 2010) .............. 18, 19

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

Individual Amici are retired defense officials, military leaders, and diplomats who have served the

United States under every President from John F.

Kennedy to Donald Trump. They include former secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, retired

four-star generals, admirals, and retired senior U.S.

diplomats. As a result of their service to the United

States, these individuals, their families, and the people they worked with and served alongside have direct

experience with voting while stationed and deployed

abroad and away from their home states. A complete

list of individual Amici appears as an Appendix to this

brief.

Organizational Amici are nonpartisan, non-profit

organizations and associations of current and former

United States military servicemembers, military families, and overseas voters that seek to protect and ensure the ability of all eligible American voters—especially U.S. military servicemembers stationed away

from their home states and abroad, and eligible civilian voters living abroad—to participate in our democracy.

1 Under Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae states that they authored this brief in whole and that no party’s counsel authored,

in whole or in part, this brief. No person or entity other than

amici, their members, and counsel contributed monetarily to preparing or submitting this brief.

The Association of Americans Resident Overseas (“AARO”), founded in 1973 and headquartered

in Paris, is a global association with members in over

40 countries. AARO works to build awareness of the

issues affecting Americans overseas and seeks fair

treatment by the U.S. government for Americans

abroad. AARO’s advocacy in voting led to the promulgation of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of

1975, which then led to the enactment of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,

commonly known as “UOCAVA,” in 1986. AARO assists U.S. citizens living overseas in the voting process

in every federal election and continues to advocate for

the removal of the remaining barriers to overseas voting.

Blue Star Families (“BSF”) is a national organization dedicated to ensuring that American military

families are connected, supported, and empowered to

thrive—in every community, across the nation, and

around the globe. Founded in 2009, BSF serves over

400,000 members through its growing nationwide

chapter network and the Blue Star Neighborhood, the

largest secure online platform for military and veteran families. As the nation’s largest military and veteran family support organization, BSF delivers programming and support across the military lifecycle

and conducts research that provides insights into the

unique challenges of military and veteran family life.

The Chamberlain Network is a national, veteran-led civic organization dedicated to defending

democratic institutions, the rule of law, and civil order

in the United States. Founded by veterans, the organization works to mobilize former service members as

engaged citizens through community organizing, public education, and advocacy focused on democracy protection and nonpartisan civic norms. Named for Civil

War hero Joshua L. Chamberlain, the Network emphasizes the continued civic responsibilities of military service beyond the uniform. The Chamberlain

Network builds state and local veteran networks, convenes public forums, and advances veteran-informed

perspectives on issues affecting democratic governance, civilian control of the military, and the peaceful

resolution of political conflict.

Founded in 1931, the Federation of American

Women’s Clubs Overseas (“FAWCO”) is an international network of independent volunteer clubs and

associations comprising 59 member clubs in 29 countries worldwide—the oldest and largest non-partisan

organization representing private sector Americans

abroad. FAWCO’s U.S. Voting Committee encourages

and assists U.S. overseas citizens to participate in

every federal election for which they are eligible by

providing a dedicated website and information and

training to volunteers in FAWCO member clubs. The

Committee also works to reduce the barriers to voting

from overseas imposed by federal and state legislation.

Secure Families Initiative (“SFI”) is a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) not-for-profit organization representing military spouses and family members that advocates for federal and state policies to increase

accessibility for registered military-affiliated and

overseas voters. SFI represents actively serving military families stationed abroad in at least eight different countries as well as those posted to military bases

within the United States. A portion of SFI’s membership are also families living abroad who have transitioned out of military service. SFI has members residing or registered to vote in every state other than

Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. Because

voting remains less accessible for its members and the

broader military and overseas community, SFI educates and registers those voters and engages in nonpartisan “get-out-the-vote” efforts for military voters

in all elections.

U.S. Vote Foundation (“US Vote”) is a civic

technology and voter assistance organization dedicated to making it easier for all U.S. citizens to register to vote and stay active in the electoral process.

With a core mission to ensure that every U.S. citizen

can participate in their democracy regardless of location, US Vote serves as a vital resource for voters facing challenges due to their geographic circumstances.

Its Overseas Vote initiative provides easily accessible,

nonpartisan voting tools, services and election information for overseas citizens and military voters who

vote under the protections of UOCAVA.

Veterans for All Voters (“VAV”) is a national,

nonpartisan, veteran-led 501(c)(3) organization

founded in 2021. VAV empowers military veterans

and military-connected Americans to advocate for

election reforms that put voters first—strengthening

competition, reducing polarization, and promoting

more effective, accountable government. Through a

nationwide network of thousands of supporters and

volunteer leaders across all 50 states, VAV elevates

trusted veteran voices in public education, coalitionbuilding, advocacy, and related civic engagement efforts.

We the Veterans and Military Families aims

to engage and empower the 16 million+ veterans and

their family members living in the United States to

help build a more perfect Union.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Fifth Circuit’s construction of the term “Election” under the federal election-day statutes—2

U.S.C. § 1, 2 U.S.C. § 7, and 3 U.S.C. § 1 (the “Election-Day Statutes”)—is erroneous as a matter of both

plain statutory meaning and constitutional structure

under the Election Clause. Amici here submit this

brief to explain that the Fifth Circuit’s decision also

flies in the face of at least a century of congressional

and state legislation incorporating ballot receipt

“grace periods” protecting the right to vote for U.S.

military and overseas voters. In light of this indisputable history, the Fifth Circuit’s overreaching assertion

of federal preemption in this area cannot be sustained.

1. Mailed absentee ballots are frequently the only

accessible option for voting available to the nearly 4

million members of the U.S. military serving abroad

or domestically outside of their home state, members

of military families, and civilians working, studying,

teaching, or preaching abroad. At every stage of the

process, military and overseas voters encounter timeconsuming challenges to register to vote, obtain absentee ballots, and return those ballots.

Since the passage of the Election Day Statutes in

1845, 1872, and 1914, respectively, Congress has repeatedly adopted special protections to encourage voting by military and civilian voters abroad, including

by mandating grace periods under certain circumstances. Moreover, Congress has taken those steps

with full knowledge that numerous states had already

enacted broader grace periods benefitting (but not

limited to) military and overseas voters, and it has

consistently deferred to and abstained from displacing

state statutory provisions requiring such voters’

timely mailed ballots to be counted if received within

a specified time period after Election Day. From the

1944 enactment of the Soldier Voting Act to the 1986

Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting

Act (“UOCAVA”), and its 2009 amendments through

the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act

(“MOVE Act”), the statutory history of congressional

legislation in this area makes clear that Congress did

not intend to limit states’ ability to adopt more protective grace periods on their own.

The logic of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in this case

would upend multiple, long-established state laws

that specifically use grace periods to alleviate the

unique barriers to voting faced by U.S. military and

overseas voters. At the same time, it would overturn

broader statutes—from which U.S. military and

overseas voters benefit—in 14 other states and the

District of Columbia that have adopted generally applicable grace periods like Mississippi’s. The Fifth Circuit’s misconstruction of the term “election” under the

Election Day Statutes permits no distinction between

such generally applicable grace periods and more tailored statutes: any suggestion that Congress somehow

authorized only a special exception for military and

overseas voters is refuted by the language, structure,

and legislative history of congressional law-making in

this area over many decades. If adopted by this Court,

such a ruling would erroneously sweep away these important statutory protections and cast aside the careful policy choices that states have made to address the

needs of their voters. The Fifth Circuit’s decision

should be reversed to prevent this result and avoid exacerbating the already significant barriers faced by

U.S. military and overseas voters in exercising their

fundamental right to vote.

2. The statutory history supporting the validity of

state-level grace periods as applied to military and

overseas voters is overwhelming, and it demonstrates

that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is erroneous as to grace

periods generally. In 1944, Congress passed the Soldier Voting Act at a time when at least nine states already had grace periods for mail-in ballots, including

four that allowed both civilian and military ballots to

be received and counted after Election Day. Congress

specifically incorporated into that federal law a provision stating that “any extension of time for the receipt

of absentee ballots permitted by State law shall apply”

to troops’ votes. With those state laws still on the

books, Congress enacted UOCAVA in 1986, including

a provision requiring that any state failing to provide

a military or overseas voter with a ballot “by . . . the

deadline for receipt of the State absentee ballot under

State law,” 52 U.S.C. § 20303(b)(3), must accept and

count timely-mailed ballots within the time period (on

or after Election Day) prescribed by each state’s independent ballot receipt deadline. In 2009, Congress

amended UOCAVA through the MOVE Act, yet it

once again deferred to and left unchanged state deadlines. Partly in response to UOCAVA and the MOVE

Act, additional states adopted grace periods allowing

timely mailed military and overseas ballots to be

counted after Election Day. Yet at no time has Congress called into question or taken any steps to displace or disturb either states’ generally applicable

grace periods or their more targeted provisions directed at military and overseas voters.

Under basic canons of statutory interpretation, the

history of congressional action compels the conclusion

that Congress did not intend to preempt or otherwise

narrow the state grace period provisions that benefit

U.S. military and overseas voters, or to deprive individual states of the ability to make policy in this area

generally by providing even greater protections to

such voters than Congress specifically mandated on a

national level. Particularly in view of the imminent

2026 elections, this Court should swiftly reject the

Fifth Circuit’s misguided negation of Congress’s

clearly established legislative deference to the states.

ARGUMENT

The Fifth Circuit’s Decision Must Be

Reversed to Avoid Exacerbating the Steep

Barriers to Voting Faced by U.S. Military

and Overseas Voters.

For military and overseas voters, voting from outof-state or abroad requires more than a trip down the

street to a local polling place. It often requires such

onerous, costly, and time-consuming efforts that

many are deterred from voting. Worse, some who

make these efforts may still not have their votes

counted due to mail delays or other circumstances outside of their control. The unique barriers that these

voters face help to underscore why numerous states

have enacted protections benefiting military and overseas voters, like Mississippi’s ballot receipt deadline.

Invalidating Mississippi’s law would remove similar

protections enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of military and civilian voters across more than two dozen

states.

A. Military and Overseas Voters Face

Unique Hurdles to Exercising Their

Fundamental Right to Vote.

Military and overseas voters find themselves

away from their home states for many reasons. These

U.S. citizens include active-duty, reserve, and National Guard soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen,

guardians, or Coast Guardsmen deployed as far away

as a foreign combat zone or domestically away from

their home states. They also include military spouses

and families, who come from all fifty states and the

U.S. territories and comprise members of every ethnic

group, religion, and sexual orientation. Nearly 50 percent of servicemembers identify as Black, Indigenous,

or a Person of Color; over 50 percent are under 30

years old; and 92 percent of military spouses are

women. See Why the Wait? Unpacking California’s

Untimely Election Counting Process, Hearing before

the Committee on House Administration, 109th Cong.

30 (Apr. 29, 2025), https://perma.cc/MKT4-L3PN.

Many of these voters must move every two to three

years and endure altered career paths or changes in

their children’s educational and social lives. Non-military overseas voters include U.S. citizens living and

working abroad as teachers, researchers, businesspeople, diplomats, missionaries, and more—taxpaying citizens who deserve an equal opportunity to participate fully in our democracy.2

There are a lot of these voters. As of 2022, nearly

three-quarters of the roughly 1.3 million active-duty

servicemembers are eligible to vote absentee. Fed.

Voter Assistance Prog. (“FVAP”), 2022 Post-Election

Voting Survey: Active Duty Military (ADM) 5 (2023),

https://perma.cc/58C4-MWGV (“2022 Active Duty Military Survey”). So are around 2.8 million voting-age

American citizens who live abroad. FVAP, State of the

Overseas Voter (2022), https://perma.cc/SD74-J6DC.

2 The United States is one of only two countries that requires cit-

izens and residents living abroad to file tax returns. See Internal

Revenue Serv., U.S. citizens and residents abroad – Filing requirements, https://perma.cc/B6JE-HV8F (last visited Jan. 6,

2026).

And there are 1.4 million active-duty military family

members, including hundreds of thousands of spouses

and adult dependents, not to mention hundreds of

thousands of reserve and National Guard members

and families. See U.S. Dep’t of Def., 2023 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community 87,

116, 155 (2023), https://perma.cc/H2AK-2CRL.

Yet despite widespread recognition of military

and overseas citizens’ fundamental right to vote and

numerous state- and federal-led initiatives to facilitate their access to the franchise,3 many of them continue to face daunting barriers to voting. In 2020, out

of active-duty military who did not vote, 43 percent of

those covered by UOCAVA wanted to or tried to vote

but were unable to do so. FVAP, 2020 Post-Election

Voting Survey: Active Duty Military 2, 37, 39 (2021),

https://perma.cc/TVD6-DHD6 (“2020 Active Duty Military Survey”). Even the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (“DARPA”)—the military agency dedicated to developing emerging technologies like the internet and GPS—recognized the challenges inherent

to overseas voting when, in 2024, it funded a project

to develop technology to ease the process for these voters. Joseph Clark, Researchers Set Out to Tackle Voting Challenges of Military Members, DOD News (Feb.

12, 2024), https://perma.cc/3TM9-U3P7. Due to state

laws and other considerations, traditional mail remains the only option for most military voters. See

FVAP, 2022 Active Duty Military Survey, supra, at 27.

3 For

more on federal and state policies serving military and

overseas voters, see infra Part I.B & Part II.

U.S. citizens working or living abroad also face obstacles in casting their ballots. Only 7.8 percent of eligible overseas voters returned a ballot for the 2020

General Election compared to 79.2 percent of domestic

voters. FVAP, 2020 Report to Congress 5, 17-18 (July

2020), https://perma.cc/4527-Z7P7. Among overseas

citizens surveyed as to why they did not vote, 82 percent reported that they wanted to vote but were unable to complete the process. Id. at 17.

From registering to vote to requesting, receiving,

and submitting an absentee ballot, as well as troubleshooting any challenges associated with that ballot, a

military or overseas voter faces obstacles throughout

the voting process that can be time-consuming and onerous to overcome.

1. Registering to vote. Simply registering to vote

can be a challenge for a military or overseas voter. A

voter may fill out their state or local registration form

for the applicable jurisdiction. Or the voter may turn

to the recommended Federal Post Card Application

(“FPCA”), which both registers the voter and requires

the voter’s state to provide a ballot to the voter at least

45 days before the next election. See FVAP, How to

Vote Absentee in the Military, https://perma.cc/JQF3YVV6 (last visited Jan. 6, 2026). But in 2020, only 26

percent of surveyed active-duty servicemembers knew

about the FPCA. FVAP, 2022 Active Duty Military

Survey, supra, at 50. Moreover, both registration

routes subject a voter to mail delays in most states,

which do not accept registrations electronically. Indeed, a military or overseas voter is encouraged to

submit the FPCA at least three months in advance to

avoid delays. FVAP, How to Vote Absentee in the Military, supra. Thus, as a practical matter, the effective

deadline for a military or overseas voter to register

may be months before an election. Given long distances and often remote locations, even proactive voters are at risk of running out of time to receive and

return a ballot.

2. Requesting and receiving a ballot. Although the

FPCA registration form doubles as a ballot request

form, relatively few military and overseas voters know

about it. Those who register through the more traditional route must take the additional step of requesting a ballot from state or local election officials. In a

survey of active-duty military voters, the difficulty of

obtaining a ballot was the most frequently reported

barrier to voting, with 49 percent of active-duty military and 14 percent of civilian overseas would-be voters reporting difficulties requesting an absentee ballot. FVAP, 2022 Active Duty Military Survey, supra, at

50; FVAP, 2020 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis

Report 35 (2021), https://perma.cc/42DV-XL5R. Requesting ballots through existing state and local processes may require internet access, yet 14 percent of

overseas voters in 2020 and 19 percent of active-duty

military in 2022 did not report that they had reliable

internet access. FVAP, 2020 Overseas Citizen Population Analysis Report, at 101; FVAP, 2022 Active Duty

Military Survey, at 33. Voters who successfully request a ballot on time may still not receive it with sufficient time to return it. Military families stationed in

Japan, for instance, report that mail can regularly

take six to eight weeks to arrive. Why the Wait?, supra, at 31. As a former Marine whose son serves in the

Navy recounted, her son’s “base is essentially his

ship”: she tried to send him his ballot, but it never arrived and “he wasn’t able to cast his ballot in the presidential election.” Camilla Rodriguez Guzman, Serving in the Military Shouldn’t Mean It’s Harder to Vote,

Nat’l Conf. of State Legis. (Aug. 26, 2025),

https://perma.cc/K7L6-FXSP.

3. Submitting a ballot. Because ballots need to be

sent both to the voter and then back to the election

official, potential delays must be overcome twice every

time someone votes from abroad. Military or overseas

voters often need to mail ballots back as early as a

month before Election Day. FVAP, 2024-25 Voting Assistance

Guide

(Aug.

2023),

https://perma.cc/9EKK-JRTF.

Delays and other issues with the mail can make

receiving and submitting a ballot difficult even for servicemembers or their family members stationed

within the United States. One military spouse reported that her home state within the continental

United States mailed her absentee ballot to the base

in Hawaii where her family was stationed. Then, with

no explanation, the ballot was sent from the post office

in Hawaii back to her permanent address in her home

state—not to her home on the base. Due to the mail

delivery error, she did not get to vote. See Why the

Wait?, supra, at 30. And if a problem arises during

voting, a military or overseas voter cannot simply visit

their local board of elections or contact the board as

easily as a local voter can.

4. Real-world examples. The manifold obstacles to

voting by U.S. military and overseas voters can be

captured by numerous real-world examples from affected voters4:



During the spring 2024 Texas primary, a military couple in Germany mailed their ballots

from their Army Post Office (“APO”) three

weeks before the election. Their ballots did not

arrive until one day after the election.



In the last presidential election, one overseas

voter based in Canada did not receive their ballot until five days before the election. The instructions said that it could not be returned by

courier. Despite tracking the ballot sent by regular mail, it did not arrive by the deadline so

their vote did not count.



A missionary teaching at a school in Hungary

used to be able to fax their ballot to Florida,

but their school had to remove its phone line.

They now have to pay more than $10 per election to send their ballot via mail. It can take

over three weeks for mail to be returned to

4 The information below reflects just a small sampling of thou-

sands of similar responses to a survey of over 5,000 military and

overseas voters, including members of amici organizations, conducted in December 2025. See Military/Overseas Voter Survey

(Dec. 2025) (on file with authors).

their home jurisdiction. In the last election,

their ballot never arrived at all.



One servicemember stationed overseas stated

that their efforts to register to vote were

thwarted because their Texas county officials

did not respond to “any mail or correspondence” regarding the 2020 and 2024 General

Elections.



An overseas voter in Belgium, after enduring a

complicated process of printing a ballot and

gluing identification information to it, had to

pay $30 to $40 on multiple occasions to get

their ballot back in time. That is not a one-off:

voters in places including Kenya, Vietnam, Italy, the U.K., and Australia have had to spend

$50 or more to mail their ballot by private courier. At the extreme end, a Texas voter based

in Panama spent over $100 to receive and send

their ballot through a traveling mailbox in Miami. Paying these fees is still no guarantee

that a ballot will arrive by Election Day.5

These individual experiences exemplify how military and overseas voters already encounter delays and

expenses that no other voters are expected to overcome. As a military spouse shared, “It’s disheartening

5 If a military or overseas voter does not receive their state ab-

sentee ballot in time, the voter may use the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (“FWAB”) as a backup. FVAP, 2024-25 Voting Assistance Guide, supra, at 9. But the FWAB is still subject to state

ballot receipt deadlines. Id. at 455.

because living overseas you can do everything right

and you don’t have control of mail coming from an

overseas base.”6

Laws like Mississippi’s help to mitigate some of

these challenges by ensuring that a validly cast ballot

that arrives shortly after Election Day can be counted;

such laws can mean the difference between a military

or overseas voter being able to participate in American democracy or being disenfranchised.

B. The

Fifth

Circuit’s

Erroneous

Interpretation of the Term “Election”

Would Arbitrarily Sweep Away State

Statutes Designed to Alleviate Obstacles

to Voting Faced by U.S. Military and

Overseas Voters.

A significant majority of states throughout the nation have enacted grace periods for absentee ballots

that help U.S. military and overseas voters overcome

the severe obstacles to voting they face in every election. The logic of the Fifth Circuit’s decision would irrationally sweep away these protections, contrary to

the clear intent of Congress.

Today, a total of 30 states (including Mississippi),

the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories

provide a grace period for at least some voters. See

Nat’l Conf. of State Legis., Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots (Dec. 24,

6 December 2025 interview with military spouse/staff member of

amicus organization (notes on file with authors).

2025), https://perma.cc/89SD-PPDF (“Table 11”).

Fourteen count these ballots for all voters while 16

count absentee ballots received after Election Day if

those ballots come from military or overseas voters.

See id.; Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-16-404, 20A-16-408.7

Some states that have grace periods for all voters even

provide additional extensions for military and overseas voters. See Alaska Stat. § 15.20.081(h)(2); Mass.

Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 54, §§ 95, 91C, 99; N.Y. Election

Law § 10-114; Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 86.007(d),

101.057. Although states have taken different approaches, with different deadlines, each state has implemented a grace period that protects the votes of

military and overseas voters and is tailored to their

individual state needs and election procedures.

Several states passed grace period laws specifically to benefit military and overseas voters after Congress enacted the MOVE Act in 2009. Prompted by the

MOVE Act, the Uniform Law Commission (the

“ULC”)—the same commission that enacts widely

adopted laws like the Uniform Commercial Code—developed the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters

Act (“UMOVA”) in consultation with state election officials and affected voters. See Unif. Mil. and Overseas

Voters Act, Prefatory Note, at 1–2 (Unif. L. Comm’n

Final Act Sept. 30, 2010), https://perma.cc/TX63UN7D. In drafting UMOVA, the ULC plainly understood that states were not preempted from enacting

grace periods benefiting military and overseas voters.

7 In addition, Montana allows an FWAB submitted by a military

or overseas voter to be counted if received by 3 p.m. the Monday

after Election Day. See Mont. Code Ann. § 13-21-206(1)(c).

Moreover, the ULC considered but rejected recommending a uniform receipt deadline. Mem. of Steve

Huefner to Uniform Military Services and Overseas

Civilian Absentee Voters Act Drafting Committee and

Observers (Feb. 19, 2010), https://perma.cc/5PAP5A56. Instead, UMOVA suggests a grace period provision: a ballot cast before Election Day must be counted

if “delivered by the end of business on the business

day before [the latest deadline for completing the

county canvass or other local tabulation used to determine the final official results].” Unif. Mil. and Overseas Voters Act § 12(a) (brackets in original). “Even

those ballots of overseas and military voters that arrive after election day can and must be included in

these official results[.]” Id. § 12(a) cmt. This recommended provision is consistent with states’ varying

practices and, in the absence of congressional action,8

states’ continued prerogative to set ballot receipt policies in accordance with their individual needs.

Some states that adopted all or some of UMOVA—

with its grace period provision—expressly understood

it as a measure to effectuate the purposes of UOCAVA

and the MOVE Act. Alabama’s law was enacted “to facilitate compliance with the federal Uniformed and

Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.” H.B. 62, Reg.

Sess., pmbl. (Ala. 2014). Colorado adopted its version

of UMOVA to “comply with the [MOVE] Act.” S. Journal, 68th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., at 1205 (Colo.

2011). As these states understood, UOCAVA and the

8 To be clear, Congress could have established a national ballot

receipt deadline, including one that requires all states to accept

ballots received after Election Day. But it did not.

MOVE Act did not limit their freedom under the Election Clause to adopt grace periods.

States have continued to provide for grace periods

as a policy choice to respond to the needs of voters,

including military and overseas voters. As described

further below, see infra Part II.B., multiple states

have had such statutes in place for decades. Nor were

more recent, generally applicable grace period statutes adopted only in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Cf. Pet. App. 5a. To the contrary, California designed its current absentee ballot grace period in 2014

to “mitigate the negative impacts” of U.S. Postal Service delays, which resulted in over 26,000 mail ballots

arriving too late to be counted in California’s 2010

election. See S. Comm. on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, Bill Analysis: S.B 29, at 3 (Cal.

2013), https://perma.cc/D637-UDNY. Observing other

states’ generally applicable grace periods for both regular absentee ballots and military and overseas ballots, California changed the deadline to three days after Election Day to “protect voters’ right to vote.” Id.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, California lengthened the grace period to 17 days after Election Day.

See A.B. 860 (Cal. 2020), https://perma.cc/DU376XE2. But after successfully navigating through the

2020 election, the state shortened that deadline to a

more modest seven days for all absentee ballots. See

Cal. Elec. Code §§ 3020, 3116, 3106; A.B. 37 (Cal.

2021), https://perma.cc/U7QJ-MEGL.

Other states have similarly cut back their general

grace periods in light of changed circumstances, while

retaining grace periods for military and overseas voters. Ohio will continue to count military and overseas

ballots mailed before Election Day and arriving up to

four days after Election Day. See S.B. 293, 136th Gen.

Assemb., § 1 (Ohio 2025), https://perma.cc/8WJTBSGD (codified at Ohio Rev. Code § 3509.05(D)); Ohio

Rev. Code § 3511.11(C)(2). North Dakota still allows a

timely-mailed military or overseas absentee ballot to

arrive any time before the county canvass. See H.B.

1165, 69th Leg., §§ 11, 13 (N.D. 2025),

https://perma.cc/8CJN-9E3P. So does Utah. See H.B.

300, 66th Legis., 2025 Gen. Sess. (Utah 2025),

https://perma.cc/7R6K-JKC2; Utah Code Ann. § 20A16-408(1). As the above history illustrates, in the absence of congressional regulation, states are fully capable of setting and then recalibrating reasonable

grace period deadlines.

State legislation on grace periods for military and

overseas voters also reflects a widespread understanding that UOCAVA and the MOVE Act did not

displace state authority in that area. Texas, for example, responded to the MOVE Act by adding a longer

deadline of five days after Election Day for civilian

overseas voters and six days after Election Day for

military servicemembers and families. See H.B. 1151,

85th

Leg.,

Reg.

Sess.

(Tex.

2017),

https://perma.cc/4NRH-B8MU; H.B. 929, 85th Leg.,

Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2017), https://perma.cc/M7UT-QHEE.

In so doing, lawmakers expressed concern that “[i]n

every election tens of thousands of military and family

members are unable to vote” because “the military absentee voting process often leaves overseas voters

with insufficient time to complete and return ballots.”

S. Rsrch Ctr., Bill Analysis: H.B. 929, at 1 (Tex. May

17, 2017), https://perma.cc/T3KP-JBWU. But these

provisions only supplemented that state’s generally

applicable provision allowing all voters’ timely mailed

absentee ballots to be counted if received within the

day after Election Day. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 86.007.

There was no suggestion that UOCAVA or the MOVE

Act had any impact on the validity of Texas’s preexisting generally applicable provision.

Mississippi followed examples of states like the

ones above when its law was passed in a unanimous,

bipartisan manner in 2020. H.B. 1406, Reg. Sess.

(Miss. 2024). A finding that federal law preempts

these provisions would be a finding that dozens of

states ignored or misunderstood federal law on the exact same point, yet Congress sat silently while they

did so for decades. That defies common sense.

II. Federal Statutory History Demonstrates

That Congress Did Not Intend to Preempt

States’ Efforts to Protect Military and

Overseas Voters’ Right to Vote.

Since the early 1800s, states have developed absentee voting processes to accommodate the needs of

military voters, including time after Election Day to

receive and count ballots. Congress passed the Election Day Statutes against this backdrop and has subsequently passed laws to facilitate military and overseas voting that rely on the ability of states to meet

their voters’ needs. The Fifth Circuit’s interpretation

of the Election Day Statutes and the practical

consequences of its ruling are entirely out of step with

the long, uninterrupted history of states exercising

their authority to protect their voters, including military and overseas voters.

A. Congress Has Long Been Aware of States’

Special Rules for Ballots Cast by Military

and Overseas Voters and Has Done

Nothing to Displace or Interfere with

Them.

“Unless Congress acts, Art I, § 4 empowers the

States to regulate.” Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69

(1997) (quoting Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 24

(1972)). In other words, states have the power to regulate elections to the extent that Congress does not

act. Consequently, congressional inaction in the context of election regulation is significant, because it indicates an intention not to preempt. Moreover,

“[b]ecause the power the Elections Clause confers is

none other than the power to pre-empt, the reasonable

assumption is that the statutory text accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent.” Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.,

570 U.S. 1, 14 (2013). Subsequent legislative developments can “particularly weak[en]” the case for federal

preemption when Congress “has indicated its awareness of the operation of state law in a field of federal

interest, and has nonetheless decided to ‘stand by both

concepts and to tolerate whatever tension there [is]

between them.’” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft

Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 166–67 (1989) (quoting Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 256 (1984)).

By the time Congress passed the Election Day

Statutes in 1845, 1872, and 1914, multiple states had

enacted grace periods to ensure troops’ votes were received and counted. These state practices undercut

the argument that the word “election” in the statutes

was ever intended or understood to require election

officials to count only ballots received on or before

Election Day.

State practices allowing absentee ballots to arrive

after Election Day predate the Civil War. During the

War of 1812, Pennsylvania enacted a law that allowed

those in military service to vote in the field and directed commanding officers, who acted as election

judges, to transmit the results to the relevant local officials within three days of the election. Act of Mar. 29,

1813, ch. 171, 1813 Pa. Laws 213–14. Two years later,

New Jersey passed a law with a similar provision. See

George Frederick Miller, Absentee Voters and Suffrage Laws 204 (1948).

During the Civil War, most states in the Union

passed laws enabling soldiers to vote while deployed.9

Josiah Henry Benton, Voting in the Field: A Forgotten

Chapter of the Civil War, 4 (1915). In at least three

states, ballots cast in the field were often not received

and counted at soldiers’ home precincts until after

9 These laws only benefited white men, even though Black men

served as soldiers and women traveled to provide medical care

and other supports to soldiers; race and gender restrictions on

voting were not banned until after the Civil War.

Election Day, yet were still accepted.10 Id. at 171–73,

186–87, 190; see also 1866 Nev. Stat. 215,

https://perma.cc/6YJK-SXPV; R.I. Acts and Resolves,

May Sess., 1864, ch. 529, at 4 (1864),

https://perma.cc/W8SU-M9WA; Pa. Act of July 2,

1839, ch. 6, § 43, https://perma.cc/S3S5-S9L7. At least

six Union states allowed soldiers’ ballots to be counted

if they arrived after Election Day. See Benton, supra,

at 317–18. Maryland required officials to wait fifteen

days after the election before counting soldiers’ votes,

and officials in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and

Rhode Island gave military voters until the deadline

for canvassing in-state ballots to have their votes delivered to state officials. Id. Then, as now, states were

free to figure out how to help troops vote.

Congress undoubtedly knew states were implementing grace periods, but it never acted to contradict

them. When Congress set a uniform federal “Election

Day” through the Election Day Statutes, it did not define the word “election” and remained silent on when

absentee votes had to be received by election officials.

See 3 U.S.C. § 1; 2 U.S.C. § 7; 2 U.S.C. § 1. Moreover,

the history of states adopting grace period laws makes

it even more difficult to “conceive that Congress

10 In stating that field voting involved soldiers placing their bal-

lots directly into the custody of election officials, Pet. App. 15a,

the Fifth Circuit’s decision overlooks a key historical fact. Under

Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island law, military personnel

overseeing polling sites or receiving soldiers’ ballots were not

deputized as state election officials. So when a soldier cast his

ballot, that ballot was not received by election officials until it

was delivered to officials in the soldiers’ home states. See Benton,

supra, at 171–73, 186–87, 189–90.

intended the federal election day statutes to have the

effect of impeding citizens in exercising their right to

vote.” Voting Integrity Project, Inc. v. Bomer, 199 F.3d

773, 777 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1230

(2000).

That history continued after World War I. In the

decade following the war, at least six states enacted

grace period laws. See Neb. Comp. Stat. §§ 2007, 2009,

2011, 2035 (1921); 1933 Wash. Sess. Laws Extraordinary Sess. 102–03, https://perma.cc/2ZF7-TBJE ; Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 10135 (1933) https://perma.cc/GPU9X2VZ;

Kan.

Stat.

§ 25-1106

(1929),

https://perma.cc/N7TR-KHB2; Cal. Pol. Code § 1360

(1923); Pa. Act of June 3, 1937, Pub. L. 1333, No. 320,

§§ 1301, 1327–30, https://perma.cc/F57M-VHMD.

By 1938, state deadlines for ballot receipt across

41 states ranged from six days before the election to

six days after the election. See Paul G. Steinbicker,

Absentee Voting in the United States, 32 Am. Pol. Sci.

Rev. 898, 905–06 (Oct. 1938). As states enacted wideranging ballot receipt deadlines, Congress took no action suggesting it intended to preempt those policies

or restrict the states’ ability to legislate for the needs

of their voters.

B. This

Court

Should

Not

Disturb

Congress’s Consistent Choice to Respect

State Ballot Receipt Deadlines.

Courts assume that Congress means what it says

and what it does not say—especially “when Congress

has shown elsewhere in the same statute that it

knows how to make such a requirement manifest.”

Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 341

(2005). This Court has refused to infer that Congress,

in enacting a later statute, intended to disrupt a prior

statute without expressly identifying the prior law.

See Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018)

(noting “strong presumption” that “Congress will specifically address preexisting law when it wishes to

suspend its normal operations in a later statute.” (alterations and citation omitted)). Not only has Congress left state ballot receipt deadline laws undisturbed, but over the past 80 years it has passed at

least five statutes to protect military and overseas voters’ ability to exercise their right to vote and have

their votes counted. Congress’s awareness of its ability to set a national ballot deadline is clear: In the first

of those five laws, Congress set a ballot receipt deadline for some voters—only to repeal it two years later.

Since then, Congress has consistently refrained from

mandating any such deadline and instead has left the

question to the states.

In 1942, Congress hastily created a “war ballot” as

millions of American voters began serving in World

War II. See Act of Sept. 16, 1942, ch. 561, 56 Stat. 753,

756, § 9; H.R. Rep. No. 77-2363, at 1 (1942). That legislation, which applied only to servicemembers training or stationed within the United States,11 set an express Election Day ballot receipt deadline for the

newly created war ballots because some states did not

11 Family members were frequently living with servicemembers

away from home, but it would take decades before their voting

rights were protected by federal law in UOCAVA.

have absentee voting, see H.R. Rep. No. 77-2363, at 1,

an inclusion that would have been entirely unnecessary had the Election Day Statutes already done so.

There would have been no need to set such a deadline

if the Election Day Statutes had already done so

through the mere use of the word “election.” By the

following year, however, the war ballot procedure had

already “proved to be complicated and cumbersome.”

Voting in Time of War by Members of the Land and

Naval Forces: Hearings before a Subcommittee of the

Committee on Privileges and Elections on S. 1285,

78th Cong. 10 (1943) (statement of Francis Biddle, Attorney General).

In 1944, Congress enacted the Soldier Voting Act,

repealing the Election Day ballot receipt deadline for

military voters contained in the 1942 legislation. In

its place, Congress stipulated a default rule requiring

that war ballots be received by Election Day to be

counted, “except that any extension of time for the receipt of absentee ballots permitted by State laws shall

apply.” Pub. L. No. 78-277, § 311(b)(3), 58 Stat. 136,

146 (emphasis added).

Notably, in a 1943 hearing on the proposed Soldier

Voting Act, lawmakers discussed an Office of War Information memorandum for members of the armed

forces. That memorandum highlighted the fact that at

least nine states at that time counted ballots received

after Election Day so long as they were mailed by

Election Day. See Soldier Voting: Hearings before the

Comm. on Election of President, Vice President, and

Representatives in Congress on H.R. 3436, 78th Cong.

107, 108, 114, 116, 119, 124, 128, 129, 134 (1943).

There can be no doubt that, in enacting the Soldier

Voting Act the following year, Congress knew that

several states had grace periods and it deferred to

their authority by incorporating them into the law.

See Voting in Time of War, supra, at 10. This is not

congressional inaction or silence: it was an informed

act of restraint acknowledging and incorporating

states’ authority to set policies for counting timely

submitted ballots before or after Election Day.

This deference to the states was also reflected in

subsequent legislation on military and overseas voting enacted by Congress in 1955 and 1975, each on a

bipartisan basis. In 1955, the Federal Voting Assistance Act (“FVAA”) included a provision “recommend[ing]” that states ensure the availability of absentee ballots for mailing to the applicant “as soon as

practicable before the last date on which such ballots

will be counted.” Pub. L. No. 84-296, § 102(12), 69

Stat. 584, 585, (1955) (emphasis added). In the 1975

Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act (“OCVRA”), Congress required each state to accept absentee ballots by

election officials at least up to the time polls close on

the day of an election. See Pub. L. No. 94-203, §§ 4(b),

(b)(3), 89 Stat. 1142, 1143 (1976). Again, however,

Congress set a floor, not a ceiling: States had to receive ballots at least through the end of Election Day,

but were free to adopt “any voting practice which is

less restrictive.” Id. at § 7(2), 89 Stat. at 1144. At no

point did Congress impose a uniform ballot receipt

deadline. Indeed, five years earlier, Congress enacted

identical language in the 1970 amendments to the

Voting Rights Act. See Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, H.R. 4249, 91st Cong. § 202(d), (g)

(1970). The FVAA and OCVRA, rather, focused on the

receipt of absentee ballots and the right to cast these

ballots. Congress continued to leave specific deadlines—and the flexibility to set those deadlines—to

the states.

So too with UOCAVA. In 1986, Congress enacted

UOCAVA “to facilitate absentee voting by United

States citizens, both military and civilian, who are

overseas.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-765, at 5 (1986), reprinted

in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2009, 2009. UOCAVA is a detailed program establishing minimum national standards for states to facilitate voting by U.S. military and

overseas voters. If Congress had wanted to curtail the

states’ freedom to set grace periods, UOCAVA would

have been the golden opportunity to do that. Instead,

Congress again took no action to override the longstanding state grace periods, which by 1986 Congress

indisputably knew about. And, again, Congress expressly incorporated deadlines for receipt of state absentee ballots under state laws in several provisions.

See 52 U.S.C. § 20303(b), (b)(3), (e)(2). First, if a requested state absentee ballot is not received by a covered voter by 30 days before a federal election, the

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (“FWAB”) may be

“submitted and processed in the manner provided by

law for absentee ballots in the State involved.” 52

U.S.C. § 20303(b). Second, state election officials

should not count a voter’s FWAB if the “State absentee ballot . . . is received by the appropriate State election official not later than the deadline for receipt of

the State absentee ballot under State law.” Id.

§ 20303(b)(3) (emphasis added). Third, the FWAB

“shall not be valid for use in a general, special primary, or runoff election for Federal office if the State

involved provides a State absentee ballot that . . . is

made available to absent uniformed services voters

and overseas voters at least 60 days before the deadline for receipt of the State ballot under State law.” Id.

§ 20303(e)(2). Built into the framework of UOCAVA is

an understanding that some states have grace periods

and retain the authority to adopt their own state-level

regulations in this area.

The statutory text of UOCAVA thus “accurately

communicates” Congress’s intent not to preempt state’

authority under the Elections Clause to adopt grace

periods. Inter Tribal Council, 570 U.S. at 14. If any

plausible doubt about that remained after UOCAVA’s

passage, it was extinguished by Congress’s 2009

amendments to UOCAVA through the MOVE Act,

which once again deferred to state ballot receipt deadlines and incorporated them into the federal framework. The law requires federal officials to deliver—

and states to process—overseas servicemembers’ absentee ballots “not later than the date by which an absentee ballot must be received in order to be counted

in the election.” 52 U.S.C. §§ 20302(a)(10),

20304(b)(1). Congress passed the MOVE Act to address the fact that nearly half the states transmitted

ballots to UOCAVA voters too close to Election Day for

them to have time to return them. See Pub. L. No. 11184, subtit. H, §§ 575-589, 123 Stat. 2190, 2318–35

(2009). Congress further found that the “States play

an essential role in facilitating the ability of military

and overseas voters to register to vote and have their

ballots cast and counted.” S. 1415, 111th Cong. § 2 (as

reported to Senate, July 16, 2009).

In short, it would be irrational to conclude that

when Congress enacted UOCAVA and MOVE, it

meant for its actions on behalf of military and overseas voters to be cut back or undermined by an expansively preemptive construction of the word “election”

in three century-old statutes—a construction Congress never raised or discussed at the time. Cf. Dep’t

of Agric. Rural Dev. Rural Hous. Serv. v. Kirtz, 601

U.S. 42, 63 (2024) (“[W]e approach federal statutes

touching on the same topic with a ‘strong presumption’ they can coexist harmoniously.” (quoting Epic

Sys., 584 U.S. at 510)).

Indeed, there is no “tension” between these or

other federal statutes and the states’ authority to

adopt grace periods—other than that generated by the

Fifth Circuit’s cramped construction of the word “election” in a manner that defies both legislative history

and common sense. See Bonito Boats, 489 U.S. at 141

(internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary,

once that word is accorded the flexibility that ordinary

usage and history both confirm, the federal and state

statutory schemes at issue here work harmoniously

together, as they were intended.

This conclusion is only reinforced by grace periods

being an available remedy to the officials charged

with enforcing that statute. Since 2000, the Justice

Department and individual states have agreed to incorporate grace periods as a remedy in a total of 29

UOCAVA enforcement actions. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

Cases Raising Claims Under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (Mar. 24, 2022),

https://perma.cc/LD99-RLB2. As these actions reflect,

both Congress and executive branch officials have

acted consistently with the statutory framework detailed above, and with the fundamental premise that

grace periods do not impair, and may enhance, the

rights of all voters, including U.S. military and overseas voters.

III. With

Election

Deadlines

Quickly

Approaching for Military and Overseas

Voters, the Court Should Decide This Case

as Soon as Practicable.

The 2026 elections have already begun. The earliest primaries will take place on March 3 in three

states. Two of these states, Texas and North Carolina,

have grace period laws. So do 24 of the 33 states with

primaries before the end of June 2026. See Nat’l Conf.

of State Legis., 2026 State Primary Election Dates

(Dec. 8, 2025), https://perma.cc/G4S6-A2JK; Part I.B,

supra. Because knowing and being able to navigate

the rules of an election particularly matters for military and overseas voters, amici urge the Court to decide this case at its earliest opportunity.

CONCLUSION

Amici respectfully urge the Court to reverse the

decision of the Fifth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

Leah J. Tulin

P. Benjamin Duke

Justin Lam

Counsel of Record

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP BRENNAN CENTER FOR

30 Hudson Yards

JUSTICE

New York, NY 10001

777 6th Street NW, Suite

(212) 841-1000

1100

pduke@cov.com

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 650-6397

Andrew B. Garber

Noah S. Goldberg

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP BRENNAN CENTER FOR

850 Tenth Street, NW

JUSTICE

Washington, DC 20001

120 Broadway, Suite 1750

(202) 662-6000

New York, NY 10271

(646) 292-8310

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

January 9, 2026

APPENDIX

List of Additional Amici Curiae

Department of the Army

Honorable Louis E. Caldera, Former Secretary of the

Army

General George Casey, United States Army (Retired)

Lieutenant General Ronald R. Blanck, United States

Army (Retired)

Lieutenant General Karen H. Gibson, United States

Army (Retired)

Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, United

States Army (Retired)

Major General Dr. Donna F. Barbisch, United States

Army (Retired)

Major General Robert A. Harding, United States

Army (Retired)

Major General Sanford E. Holman, United States

Army (Retired)

Major General Randy E. Manner, United States Army

(Retired)

Major General Antonio M. Taguba, United States

Army (Retired)

Major General Dr. Margaret C. Wilmoth, United

States Army (Retired)

Major General David T. Zabecki, United States Army

(Retired)

Brigadier General Robert J. Felderman, United

States Army (Retired)

Brigadier General David R. Irvine, United States

Army (Retired)

Brigadier General John M. Schuster, United States

Army (Retired)

Brigadier General Dr. Stephen N. Xenakis, United

States Army (Retired)

Department of the Air Force

General Michael V. Hayden, United States Air Force

(Retired)

Honorable Deborah Lee James, Former Secretary of

the Air Force

General Craig R. McKinley, United States Air Force

(Retired)

Lieutenant General John D. Hopper, Jr., United

States Air Force (Retired)

Major General Richard T. Devereaux, United States

Air Force (Retired)

Major General Irving L. Halter, Jr., United States Air

Force (Retired)

Major General Steven J. Lepper, United States Air

Force (Retired)

Major General Frederick H. Martin, United States Air

Force (Retired)

Major General Margaret Woodward, United States

Air Force (Retired)

Brigadier General Ricardo Aponte, United States Air

Force (Retired)

Brigadier General John W. Douglass, United States

Air Force (Retired)

Brigadier General Guy M. Walsh, United States Air

Force (Retired)

Brigadier General Daniel P. Woodward, United States

Air Force (Retired)

Department of the Navy

Honorable Sean O’Keefe, Former Secretary of the

Navy

Admiral C. Steve Abbot, United States Navy

(Retired)

Vice Admiral Dr. Donald C. Arthur, Jr., United

States Navy (Retired)

Vice Admiral Kevin P. Green, United States Navy

(Retired)

Rear Admiral James A. Barnett, Jr., United States

Navy (Retired)

Rear Admiral John D. Butler, United States Navy

(Retired)

Rear Admiral Jay A. DeLoach, United States Navy

(Retired)

Rear Admiral Kelvin N. Dixon, United States Navy

(Retired)

Rear Admiral Dr. Janice M. Hamby, United States

Navy (Retired)

Rear Admiral Thomas G. Lilly, United States Navy

(Retired)

Rear Admiral Fernandez L. Ponds, United States

Navy (Retired)

United States Marine Corps

General Carlton Fulford, United States Marine

Corps (Retired)

Brigadier General Joseph V. Medina, United States

Marine Corps (Retired)

United States Coast Guard

Admiral Thad W. Allen, United States Coast Guard

(Retired)

Department of State

Ambassador Donald E. Booth (Retired)

Ambassador Kathleen Doherty (Retired)

Ambassador Cameron R. Hume (Retired)

Ambassador Dennis C. Jett (Retired)

Senior Foreign Service Officer Susan R. Johnson

(Retired)

Ambassador Patrick F. Kennedy (Retired)

Ambassador Hugo Llorens (Retired)

Minister-Counselor, Edward Marks (Retired)

Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann (Retired)

Senior Foreign Service Officer Annie Pforzheimer

(Retired)

Ambassador Charles A. Ray (Retired)

Ambassador David H. Shinn (Retired)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.