Supreme Court Weighs in on Campaign Finance and Absentee Ballots in Back-To-Back Decisions
In a pair of decisions released this week, the Supreme Court addressed two distinct questions in federal election law. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates were unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court concluded that federal election-day statutes do not require absentee ballots to be received by election day, leaving state laws allowing receipt after election day intact.
Coordinated Political Expenditures: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court decided National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (“NRSC”), overruling Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Commission (commonly known as Colorado II) and holding that federal limits on political party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.
The decision removes a major federal restriction on how political parties may work with and spend money for their candidates during campaigns. Other campaign finance rules, however, such as contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements, remain in place.
The Court’s Reasoning
The plaintiffs in NRSC challenged a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limited how much political parties could spend on campaign activity in coordination with candidates. The majority viewed the limitation as a direct burden on political speech.
Relying on its precedent in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that the government may restrict campaign finance activity only to “prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption” and that Congress may do so only to target quid pro quo corruption.
While the Court has historically recognized that the government may impose restrictions on campaign spending to avoid circumvention of contribution limits, it was not persuaded that restrictions on political party coordinated expenditures were the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.
In the Court’s view, other federal campaign finance rules already address the risk of corruption. Those rules limit how much individual donors may give to candidates, including money routed through political parties but earmarked for a candidate’s benefit. They also require parties and candidates to publicly report contributions and campaign spending. Because those safeguards are already in place, the Court concluded that limits on coordinated spending by political parties go too far, are not necessary, and are not sufficiently tailored to prevent quid pro quo corruption. In a footnote, the Court clarified that its decision in NSRC was limited to coordinated expenditures by political parties and did not address expenditures by outside groups.
The Dissent’s Warning
Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The dissent argued that coordinated expenditure limits were an important guardrail against corruption. In the dissent’s view, without limits, donors could give large amounts to political parties that could allow parties to function as alternative campaign accounts for candidates, weakening contribution limits and increasing the risk of actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption.
Postmarks and Ballot Deadlines: Watson v. Republican National Committee
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Watson v. Republican National Committee, which involved a challenge to a Mississippi law that allowed some absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later.
The Court held that federal law does not require absentee ballots to be received by election day. Instead, it allowed individual states to determine whether to count ballots mailed on time but received afterward. Over a dozen states and territories currently accept ballots postmarked by election day, even if delivered to the clerk at a later date. Michigan does not accept ballots received by the clerk after 8 p.m. on election day, except for military and overseas voters. For that limited group, ballots postmarked on election day but received by the clerk within six days of the election may be counted. For all other voters, the ballot must be in the clerk’s possession (either at the clerk’s office or submitted in a ballot drop box) by 8 p.m. on election day. The Watson decision does not change any ballot receipt rules in Michigan.
Background
Several political organizations sued Mississippi officials, arguing that federal law requires ballots to be both cast and received by election day. A lower court ruled in favor of Mississippi, but the federal court of appeals disagreed and held that federal law requires receipt of all ballots by election day.
Meaning of “Election”
The Court explained that the word “election” refers to the act of voters choosing candidates. It stated that this choice is made when people complete voting, not when election officials receive ballots.
The Court relied on common definitions and prior cases, which describe an election as the expression of voters’ choices. These sources focus on voting itself rather than the later handling of ballots.
Role of State and Federal Law
The Court explained that federal law sets the day when voting must occur, but it does not set a deadline when ballots must be received. Thus, states have the authority to decide when absentee ballots must arrive.
The Court also pointed to another federal law dealing with absentee voting for military and overseas voters. That law repeatedly refers to state deadlines for receiving ballots, which supports the idea that states control receipt deadlines.
If you have questions about the effect of the Court opinions, please contact your Miller Canfield attorney or one of the authors of this alert.
Miller Canfield’s Election Law Team takes a cross-disciplinary approach, drawing on expertise from a wide spectrum of practice areas to respond quickly and strategically, when the stakes are high.
