Absentee/mail-in voting

Election Information
2026 election and voting dates
Voter registration
Early voting
Absentee/mail-in voting
All-mail voting
Voter ID laws
State poll opening and closing times
Time off work for voting
Ballotpedia's Election Policy Legislation Tracker
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its voting policies.
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Absentee/mail-in voting is voting that does not happen in person on Election Day but instead occurs another way (generally by mail). All states allow for some form of absentee/mail-in voting. Thirteen states require voters to provide a valid excuse to vote absentee/by mail. Twenty-nine states allow any eligible voter to cast an absentee/mail-in ballot. Eight states have automatic mail-in ballot systems, also known as all-mail voting systems.

HIGHLIGHTS

Absentee/mail-in voting procedures can be divided into two categories: automatic mail-in ballot systems and request-required mail-in ballot systems.

Automatic mail-in ballot systems mandate that all eligible voters receive a mailed ballot by default. These are sometimes referred to as all-mail voting systems.

Request-required mail-in ballot systems require that eligible voters initiate the process for receiving, and casting, mail-in ballots. These have traditionally been described as absentee voting systems.

• Background

  Background and context on different types of absentee/mail-in voting.
  Read more
• State procedures

  Absentee/mail-in voting laws by state.
  Read more
• Ballot receipt deadlines

  Absentee/mail-in ballot receipt deadlines by state.
  Read more
• Support and opposition

  Arguments for and against no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting.
  Read more
• Noteworthy events

  Noteworthy events related to absentee/mail-in voting
  Read more
• Absentee/mail-in voting legislation

  Legislation related to absentee/mail-in voting
  Read more

Background

Every state provides for some method whereby voters can cast ballots without visiting a physical polling place. The terms absentee voting, voting by mail, or voting from home are sometimes used to describe these methods, which can be divided into two categories: automatic mail-in ballot systems and request-required mail-in ballot systems.

Automatic mail-in ballot systems

See also: All-mail voting

Automatic mail-in ballot systems mandate that all eligible voters receive a ballot by default. These are sometimes referred to as all-mail voting systems.

Access to mail-in voting is not restricted to voters meeting certain eligibility criteria and officials automatically transmit mail-in ballots to all eligible voters. Voters may return these ballots by mail or by using designated deposit sites. Limited in-person voting is generally available, although the number of polling sites and terms of accessibility vary from state to state. One state, Nevada, allows voters to opt out of all-mail voting.

Request-required mail-in ballot systems

Request-required mail-in ballot systems require that eligible voters initiate the process for receiving and casting mail-in ballots. These have traditionally been described as absentee voting systems. There are two types of request-required mail-in ballot systems.

• No excuse required: Any voter may request a mail-in ballot. Generally, a voter must first submit an application in order to receive a ballot. The voter may then return the completed ballot by mail or by using a designated deposit site. In-person voting is the primary method for casting a ballot in these states.
  • Automatic mail-in ballot applications: In one state, Massachusetts, officials automatically transmit mail-in ballot applications to all eligible voters. A voter must complete and submit the application to receive a ballot. The voter then returns the completed ballot by mail or by using designated deposit sites.
• Excuse required: A voter must meet eligibility criteria in order to qualify for a mail-in ballot, such as having an illness or disability or being absent from their polling place on Election Day. Generally, a voter must first submit an application in order to receive a ballot. The voter may then return the completed ballot by mail or by using a designated deposit site. In-person voting is the primary method for casting a ballot in these states.

Absentee/mail-in voting procedures by state

The map and table below summarizes existing statutory absentee/mail-in voting procedures in the states.

Absentee/mail-in voting procedures by state

State	Absentee/mail-in voting type	Description
Alabama	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Alaska	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Arizona	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Arkansas	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
California	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Colorado	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Connecticut	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Delaware	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Florida	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Georgia	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Hawaii	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Idaho	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Illinois	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Indiana	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Iowa	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Kansas	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Kentucky	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Louisiana	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Maine	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Maryland	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Massachusetts	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Michigan	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Minnesota	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Mississippi	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Missouri	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Montana	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Nebraska	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Nevada	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
New Hampshire	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
New Jersey	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
New Mexico	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
New York	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
North Carolina	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
North Dakota	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Ohio	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Oklahoma	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Oregon	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Pennsylvania	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Rhode Island	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
South Carolina	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
South Dakota	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Tennessee	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Texas	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Utah	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Vermont	Automatic mail-in voting (general elections only)	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
Virginia	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Washington	Automatic mail-in voting	Every voter receives a mail-in ballot by default.
West Virginia	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	Excuse required.
Wisconsin	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.
Wyoming	Request-required absentee/mail-in voting	No excuse required.

Voter identification requirements for absentee/mail-in voting

Under the Help America Vote Act, a person who has not voted in a federal election in the state in which they are voting and who did not submit a copy of their ID when registering to vote must either provide a copy of their ID with their absentee/mail-in ballot or submit a paycheck, bank statement, current utility bill, or government document showing their name and address.

States differ in how they apply voter identification laws for absentee/mail-in voting.

• Three states — Alabama, Kentucky, and New Hampshire — require voters to provide a copy of their photo identification when requesting an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• Two states — Arkansas and North Carolina — require voters to submit a copy of their photo identification when returning an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• Eight states require voters to provide a copy of their photo identification when applying for an absentee/mail-in ballot in certain situations other than what is required under the Help America Vote Act.
• Two states— Oklahoma and South Carolina — require voters to provide a copy of their photo identification when returning an absentee/mail-in ballot in certain situations other than what is required under the Help America Vote Act.
• Two states — Georgia and Ohio — require voters to provide a copy of their photo identification when applying for and returning an absentee/mail-in ballot in certain situations other than what is required under the Help America Vote Act.

Additionally, some other states with voter identification requirements mandate that voters must provide a driver's license number, Social Security number or other identification number in order to vote using an absentee/mail-in ballot:

• Nine states require voters provide a driver's license number, Social Security number or other identification number when applying for an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• Two states — Alaska and Texas — require voters to provide their identification number when requesting and returning an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• One state, Utah, requires a voter identification number when returning an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• Seven states require a voter identification number in certain situations when applying for an absentee/mail-in ballot.
• Two states — Georgia and Ohio — require a voter identification number in certain situations when applying for and returning an absentee/mail-in ballot.

The table below describes the voter ID requirements for individuals requesting and submitting an absentee/mail-in ballot in each state.

Voter identification requirements for absentee/mail voting by state

State	Type of requirement	Source
Alabama	A photo ID is required when applying for an absentee ballot. This does not apply to federal overseas voters	Alabama Code Section 17-9-30
Alaska	An identification number is required to apply for an absentee ballot and when a voter returns their ballot	AS 15.20.081 Alaska absentee ballot application Alaska absentee ballot envelope
Arizona	No requirement	N/A
Arkansas	Voters must include a copy of their photo ID when returning their absentee ballot. Overseas military voters and their spouses are exempt from the requirement. Residents of a long-term care or residential care facility are exempt from the requirement, provided an administrator attests that the voter is a resident	Arkansas Constitution of 1874 Amendment 51, § 13
California	No voter ID law	N/A
Colorado	No requirement	N/A
Connecticut	No requirement	N/A
Delaware	No requirement	N/A
Florida	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for a vote-by-mail ballot. Military and overseas voters are exempt from this requirement	Fla. Stat. §101.62
Georgia	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for and returning an absentee ballot. If a voter does not provide an identification number when applying for or returning a ballot, they must include a copy of their photo ID	O.C.G.A § 21-2-381 O.C.G.A § 21-2-385
Hawaii	No voter ID law	N/A
Idaho	Voters must provide an identification number if applying for an absentee ballot online	Idaho Secretary of State
Illinois	No voter ID law	N/A
Indiana	Voters must provide their driver's license number, ID card number or Social Security number when applying for an absentee ballot. A person also can provide a copy of their photo ID to fulfill this requirement	Ind. Code §3-11-4-2
Iowa	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for an absentee ballot	Iowa Code §53.2
Kansas	Voters must provide their driver's license number or provide a copy of their photo ID when applying for an advanced mail ballot	Kan. Stat. Ann. §25-1122
Kentucky	Voters must provide a copy of their photo ID when applying for an absentee ballot	KRS §117.085
Louisiana	Voters must provide a copy of their photo ID when applying for an absentee ballot if they are considered a disabled applicant. Voters must provide their identification number when applying for an absentee ballot online; if applying using a paper form, this step is optional.	Louisiana Secretary of State Louisiana absentee ballot application
Maine	No voter ID law	N/A
Maryland	No voter ID law	N/A
Massachusetts	No voter ID law	N/A
Michigan	Voters must provide an identification number if applying for an absentee ballot online	Mich. Comp. Laws §168.759
Minnesota	No voter ID law	N/A
Mississippi	No requirement	N/A
Missouri	Voters must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number when applying for an absentee ballot	Missouri absentee ballot request form
Montana	No requirement	N/A
Nebraska	Voters must provide either their driver's license or ID number or a copy of their photo ID when requesting a by-mail early voting ballot. Voters can complete a reasonable impediment certificate instead of providing their ID	Neb. Rev. Stat. §32-941
Nevada	No voter ID law	N/A
New Hampshire	Effective September 30, 2025, voters must present their photo ID in person when applying for an absentee ballot or must include a notarized signature or a copy of their ID if they are mailing their application	New Hampshire Chapter 0302
New Jersey	No voter ID law	N/A
New Mexico	No voter ID law	N/A
New York	No voter ID law	N/A
North Carolina	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for an absentee ballot and must include a copy of their ID when returning their ballot. Voters also can complete an exception form instead of providing their ID	N.C. Gen. Stat. §163-230.1 North Carolina State Board of Elections
North Dakota	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for an absentee ballot. Disabled voters are exempt from this requirement and those living outside the U.S. can use their military ID or passport	N.D.C.C. §16.1-07-06
Ohio	Voters must provide either a copy of their ID or their driver's license or identification number when applying for and returning their absentee ballot	R.C. 3509.03 R.C. 3509.05
Oklahoma	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for an absentee ballot. They also must provide their ID if returning an absentee ballot in person	Oklahoma absentee ballot application Okla. Stat. tit. 26, § 14-108
Oregon	No voter ID law	N/A
Pennsylvania	No voter ID law	N/A
Rhode Island	Voters must provide their driver's license number or state ID card number when applying for an absentee ballot online. Voters applying using a state form must provide their driver's license number, state ID card number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.	Rhode Island Secretary of State R.I. Gen. Laws §17-20-13
South Carolina	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for an absentee ballot. They also must provide their ID if returning an absentee ballot in person	S.C. Code Ann. §7-15-330 and S.C. Code Ann. §7-15-385(D)(1)
South Dakota	Voters must provide a copy of their photo ID or a notarized statement when applying for an absentee ballot	SDCL 12-19-2
Tennessee	Voters must provide their Social Security number when applying for an absentee ballot	Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-6-202
Texas	Voters must provide an identification number when applying for and returning a ballot by mail	Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §84.002 Texas Secretary of State
Utah	Voters must provide the last four digits of their driver's license, ID card or Social Security number when returning a mail-in ballot. If voters do not provide those numbers, election officials will attempt to match the voter's signature on the envelope affidavit to the signature on file	Utah H.B. 300
Vermont	No voter ID law	N/A
Virginia	Voters must provide their identification number when applying for an absentee ballot, unless they are doing so in person. If a person is applying for an absentee ballot in person they must instead provide a copy of their ID or sign a sworn statement	Va. Code §24-2-701
Washington	No requirement	N/A
West Virginia	No requirement	N/A
Wisconsin	A voter must provide a copy of their photo ID when requesting an absentee ballot unless it was previously provided in an earlier absentee ballot request	Wis. Stat. §6.86(ar)
Wyoming	A voter must provide a copy of their ID if requesting an absentee ballot in person	Wy. Stat. §22-9-104

Ballot receipt deadlines

See also: Timelines related to absentee/mail-in ballot processing and counting

Regardless of when state laws permit election officials to process or count ballots, starting this work depends on the date that they receive completed ballots.

HIGHLIGHTS

As of June 2026:

One state—Louisiana—required ballots returned by mail to be received the day before Election Day.

Thirty-five states required a ballot be received by Election Day.

Five states had a receipt deadline between one and four days after the election.

Seven states and D.C. had a deadline between five and 10 days after Election Day.

Two states—Illinois and Washington—had a deadline between 14 and 20 days after the election.

Every state that accepts ballots after Election Day requires that the ballot has a postmark on or before Election Day to be counted.

Support and opposition

See also: Arguments for and against no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting

Whether no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting is beneficial or harmful, and whether it should be expanded or restricted, are subjects of debate. See our page, Arguments for and against no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting, for detailed support and opposition arguments from a variety of sources.

• 
  Support

  Supporters of no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting may argue:
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting improves voter turnout.
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting helps make voting easier for certain groups.
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting can enhance election security
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting helps voters be more informed when casting a ballot
  Read More
• 
  Opposition

  Opponents of no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting may argue:
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting can lead to election integrity concerns and create more opportunities for fraud or errors.
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting can lead to voter intimidation or bribery.
  
  •No-excuse absentee/mail-in voting can lead to delays in the reporting of election results.
  
  •Voting in person is good for democracy and civic health.
  Read More

Method of how ballots were cast by state

See also: Voting policies in the United States

The following table shows how many ballots were cast by specific methods (by mail, early in-person voting, etc.) according to the Election Assistance Commission's 2024 report on U.S. election administration, which can be found here.

Method of how ballots were cast by state, 2024

State	Mail ballots counted	In-person Election Day votes	In-person early votes	Provisional voters
Alabama	126,018	N/A	N/A	N/A
Alaska	48,744	175,541	92,281	14,786
Arizona	2,816,885	496,753	349,129	15,699
Arkansas	24,552	294,235	810,714	1,389
California	13,062,318	1,836,518	878,489	289,935
Colorado	2,957,550	141,556	109,209	205
Connecticut	127,354	N/A	715,275	36
Delaware	33,659	268,718	210,295	14
D.C.	168,111	82,396	72,914	93
Florida	2,947,371	2,596,761	5,364,821	6,168
Georgia	268,751	1,239,125	3,768,395	3,718
Hawaii	483,078	0	39,158	0
Idaho	179,777	508,734	225,973	N/A
Illinois	1,022,256	2,666,185	2,001,203	8,316
Indiana	1,603,815	1,372,508	1,397,345	1,939
Iowa	220,041	N/A	N/A	749
Kansas	149,350	604,319	557,906	27,441
Kentucky	116,324	1,267,653	687,057	194
Louisiana	119,706	1,047,445	849,784	535
Maine	215,242	463,500	157,116	N/A
Maryland	744,244	1,145,134	974,945	145,763
Massachusetts	1,173,112	1,713,191	600,225	1,797
Michigan	2,017,704	2,453,252	1,214,409	10
Minnesota	446,576	1,960,360	850,705	N/A
Mississippi	N/A	1,010,752	N/A	14,685
Missouri	178,526	2,067,247	867,936	5,534
Montana	430,159	N/A	N/A	N/A
Nebraska	307,135	564,660	80,304	10,651
Nevada	656,140	247,291	543,461	28,242
New Hampshire	92,945	730,273	0	0
New Jersey	828,200	N/A	N/A	116,528
New Mexico	111,527	252,629	556,395	1,597
New York	836,987	4,320,467	2,986,704	194,588
North Carolina	298,269	1,175,905	4,224,909	24,989
North Dakota	89,429	181,998	99,007	N/A
Ohio	1,058,400	3,130,240	1,536,604	104,848
Oklahoma	98,548	1,174,876	294,037	1,598
Oregon	2,253,114	N/A	N/A	52
Pennsylvania	1,933,102	5,043,808	N/A	69,506
Rhode Island	51,995	290,699	173,547	2,514
South Carolina	98,782	977,341	1,476,843	4,517
South Dakota	151,762	273,648	0	201
Tennessee	86,904	856,491	2,132,535	3,139
Texas	384,221	2,329,171	8,703,181	20,511
Utah	1,239,070	104,350	36,381	41,114
Vermont	240,375	122,386	2,631	0
Virginia	474,332	2,053,905	1,840,239	111,390
Washington	3,890,945	N/A	171	12
West Virginia	22,377	431,925	310,305	2,905
Wisconsin	572,434	1,870,285	977,648	57
Wyoming	38,217	154,579	76,943	63
Total	47,496,433	51,698,810	48,847,129	1,278,028

Noteworthy events

Kansas judge temporarily reinstates three-day grace period for mail ballots (2025-2026)

On July 16, a Kansas district judge ordered the temporary reinstatement of a policy allowing advance mail ballots to be accepted if the ballots are postmarked by election day and are received within three days of the election. The decision blocked a 2025 law that changed the deadline for ballots to be received to 7:00 p.m. on election day while litigation continues.

The same day, Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) appealed the decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals and, on July 20, asked the court to keep the 2025 law, SB 4, in place in the meantime. On July 27, the court of appeals denied Schwab's request to reinstate the election day deadline ahead of the state's Aug. 4 primary.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) and Schwab's attorneys appealed that decision to the Kansas Supreme Court on July 28. Kobach previously filed an emergency motion to transfer the case to the supreme court on July 20. On July 30, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled 4-2 not to take the case up on an emergency basis before the Aug. 4 primary.

In his July 16 ruling, Douglas County District Court Judge Carl Folsom III agreed to temporarily block SB 4, writing that there was a "substantial likelihood that SB 4 will result in arbitrary treatment of voters because ballots will be rejected due to postal delays outside the voters’ control." Folsom also cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Mississippi's post-election grace period in responding to an argument that federal law requires ballots to be received by election day.

Following Folsom's ruling, Kobach said that "over 44,000 Kansas voters have received or are about to receive, probably in today’s mail, their advance ballot. ... And it’s accompanied by a note saying 'You have to get this in by Election Day.' ... We would like the higher courts to intervene as soon as possible and give clarity and presumably restore Kansas law."

In denying the state's request to block Folsom's ruling, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sarah Warner wrote, "This court finds that the potential for irreparable harm of voter confusion weighs against the requested stay. ... This very real and irreparable harm—that the votes of well-meaning Kansans, acting in good faith based on a judicial decision, would not be counted—outweighs the administrative burden of counting the mail-in ballots received within three days after Election Day."

Kansas legislature overrides Gov. Kelly's veto of bill changing mail ballot deadline (2025)

On March 25, 2025, the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate voted 84-41 and 30-10, respectively, to override Governor Laura Kelly's (D) veto of SB 4. As enacted, the bill requires that absentee ballots must be received by a county election officer by 7 p.m. on Election Day to be counted, starting on January 1, 2026. Previously, the state counted absentee ballots if received by the third day following an election, provided they were postmarked by Election Day.

After vetoing the bill, Kelly said "[n]ot only will removing the three-day grace period for mail ballots disenfranchise thousands of Kansas voters, but it also shows a lack of understanding of our elections in Kansas." State Reps. Chris Croft, Daniel Hawkins, and Blake Carpenter (R) said in a statement that "Kansas voters – whether in rural communities or urban centers – deserve an election system that is transparent, fair, and trusted. This override reflects House Republicans’ commitment to ensuring all Kansas’ votes will be counted."

SB 4 originally passed the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas State Senate by votes of 80-39 and 30-10, respectively.

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Mississippi ballot return law (2024-2026)

See also: Watson v. Republican National Committee

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the legality of a Mississippi law permitting election officials to count absentee ballots received up to five business days after the election, provided they were postmarked by election day. The ruling overturned an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that struck down the law. In two 2024 lawsuits, the Republican National Committee and the state Republican and Libertarian parties challenged the law, saying that federal law establishes a uniform, national Election Day for congressional and presidential elections.

On July 8, 2020, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves signed House Bill 1521, which allowed absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and received by local election officials within five days of the election. The legislation was enacted in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

As of 2026, Mississippi was one of 14 states to allow absentee/mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrived within a set period of time after the election. States have different deadlines for when a ballot must arrive to be counted. Five states had a receipt deadline between one and four days after the election. Seven states and D.C. had a deadline between five and 10 days after Election Day. Two states—Illinois and Washington—had a deadline between 14 and 20 days after the election.

In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that federal law requires that a voter fill out their ballot by election day but does not dictate that the ballot be received by a set deadline. Barrett was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett said that requiring ballots to be received by election day would fly in the face of legal precedent and “carried to its logical conclusion, this theory would call into question the way modern elections work.”

“In sum, the election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi,” Barrett wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the appeals court ruling should have been upheld, as federal law requires ballots to be collected on the day of the election. Alito was joined in his dissent by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas.

Alito said that historical precedent reinforces “the proposition that holding an 'election' on a particular day means that poll workers had to receive the ballots by that date.”

“Today, not all voting occurs in person on election day. Both voting by mail and early voting have become popular, and respondents do not dispute the lawfulness of these modern practices. Nor do I,” Alito wrote. “But acceptance of these practices cannot change the fact that under federal law, the electorate’s collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on election day.”

See below for a timeline of events and relevant documents in reverse chronological order.

• June 29, 2026

  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Mississippi's law is not preempted by federal statutes, overturning the circuit court ruling. Click here to read the court's order.

• March 23, 2026

  The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 23, 2026.

• November 10, 2025

  The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in an unsigned order. Click here to read the court's order.

• June 6, 2025

  Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson (R) filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review and reverse the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in the case. The filing said, "That ruling defies statutory text, conflicts with this Court’s precedent, and—if left to stand—will have destabilizing nationwide ramifications. As five judges explained in dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, the decision is thus deeply wrong and raises an issue of exceptional importance. This Court should review that decision now and reject it."

• April 18, 2025

  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi paused proceedings in the case pending "the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and the conclusion of any Supreme Court proceedings on the merits."

• March 14, 2025

  The full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-5 to deny the petition to rehear the case, leaving the Election Day deadline in place. In the principal dissent, Judge James Graves wrote, "At a minimum, this case presents a question of exceptional importance: whether federal law prohibits states from counting valid ballots that are timely cast and received by election officials within a time period designated by state law. The substantial, if not overwhelming, weight of authority—including dictionary definitions, federal and state caselaw, and legislative history—counsels against the preemptive interpretation that the panel adopted."
  
  Concurring in the denial to rehear the case, Judge Andrew Oldham wrote, "According to the dissenting opinion, States should be free to accept ballots for as long as they’d like after Election Day. That is, of course, a question for Congress. But even if it was a question for federal judges, do our dissenting colleagues really think that federal law imposes no time limits at all on ballot acceptance?"
  
  Read the full opinion below.

  March 14 order denying petition to rehear

• November 8, 2024

  Two nonprofit appellees, Vet Voice Foundation and Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans, filed a petition for a rehearing of the panel's decision en banc, before the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

• October 25, 2024

  A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals consisting of judges James Ho, Stuart Kyle Duncan, and Andrew Oldham overturned the district court's decision and ruled that absentee ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted for federal elections. The opinion held that "Congress statutorily designated a singular 'day for the election' of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this 'day for the election' is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials." The panel declined to enforce a new deadline for the November 5, 2024, election due to the decision's proximity to Election Day. President Donald Trump (R) appointed all three judges on the panel during his first presidential administration. Read the full opinion below.

  October 25 panel opinion

• September 10, 2024

  The U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in the case, urging the Fifth Circuit court to affirm the lower court's decision upholding the receipt deadline. One day later, the attorneys general of 18 states and D.C. filed a brief in support of the appellees (the defendants in the original complaint).

• August 2, 2024

  The RNC filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

• July 28, 2024

  District court judge Louis Guirola issued an order upholding the deadline by denying the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and granting the defendant's. The opinion found that the plaintiff's did have standing to sue but that "Mississippi’s statutory procedure for counting lawfully cast absentee ballots, postmarked on or before election day, and received no more than five business days after election day is consistent with federal law and does not conflict with the Elections Clause, the Electors’ Clause, or the election-day statutes." Read the full opinion below.

  July 28 district court opinion

• April 11, 2024

  The Biden administration's Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case.

• March 7, 2024

  The court partially granted a Democratic National Committee (DNC) request to intervene. Read the order here.

• January 26, 2024

  The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi asking the court to require the return of absentee ballots by Election Day for federal elections. Under Mississippi law, election officials counted ballots postmarked by Election Day and received no later than the fifth day after. Read the complaint here.
  The case was consolidated with other similar challenges as RNC v. Wetzel.

---

View all

President Donald Trump issues absentee/mail-in voting executive order (2026)

On March 31, 2026, President Donald Trump (R) signed Executive Order: Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. The order included requirements for state election officials and the United States Postal Service (USPS) pertaining to the absentee/mail-in voting process.

The order requires states to notify the USPS 90 days before a federal election whether they intend to allow absentee/mail-in voting. State officials would then submit to the USPS, 60 days before the election, a list of all eligible voters to whom they intend to send a ballot. The USPS would be prohibited from mailing an absentee/mail-in ballot to individuals “unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list.” The USPS would also be required to provide states with a “State-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List,” which states could modify before the election.

The postmaster general must also initiate a proposed rule specifying that “all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope” that is “marked as Official Election Mail” and is “automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode.”

The order also requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to use federal data to create a list of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in each state and submit each state’s list to its respective chief election official. Those voters would still need to register to vote to cast a ballot.

Under the order, the U.S. attorney general would be required to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials "who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election," and executive departments and agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from non-compliant state or local governments.

Opponents of the executive order filed multiple federal lawsuits challenging its provisions, arguing it violated separation of powers, exceeded USPS' statutory authority, and violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The Trump Administration has argued the order is a lawful use of executive authority and that the lawsuits are not ripe because the order has not been implemented.

Litigation challenging the executive order

See below for a timeline of litigation challenging the executive order, in reverse-chronological order.

• August 11, 2026

  U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary junction in the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts case blocking implementation of Section 3 of the executive order nationally. That portion of the order would require states to notify the USPS 90 days before a federal election whether they intend to allow absentee/mail-in voting. State officials would then submit to the USPS, 60 days before the election, a list of all eligible voters to whom they intend to send a ballot. The USPS would be prohibited from mailing an absentee/mail-in ballot to individuals not on a state list. Talwani previously issued an injunction in the 23-state case, blocking the order from being enforced in 23 states and Washington, D.C.

  In her order, Talwani wrote that "the EO is presently causing confusion and threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy, the court finds that enfranchisement heavily outweighs the executive’s attempt to unconstitutionally insert itself into the domain of election regulation. That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election."

  In a statement, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said, "The entire Trump Administration will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact — which includes the safety and security of American elections. This campaign pledge from the President is why millions of Americans sent him back to the White House.”

  August 11 district court opinion

• July 28, 2026

  A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a May 28 ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia not to grant a preliminary injunction in the DSCC case blocking the executive order from taking effect. In the ruling, the judges wrote that "while Plaintiffs have identified a number of serious questions concerning the lawfulness of proposed actions if implemented on the threshold of the upcoming federal election, this case likely is unripe for review in its present posture."

• July 27, 2026

  The U.S. Department of Justice filed an emergency stay application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to stay the district court's injunction in the 23-state case. The 23 states and Washington, D.C. had until August 3 to file a response.

• July 25, 2026

  A three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a motion to stay the district court's order in the 23-state case blocking implementation of the executive order in 23 states and Washington, D.C.

• July 22, 2026

  U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts case, finding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring constitutional and Voting Rights Act claims, but granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Administrative Procedures Act claims.

• July 20, 2026

  Plaintiffs in the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts case filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's block on USPS implementing part of the executive order.

• July 7, 2026

  U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani declined to stay her June 25 injunction in the 23-state case.

• July 1, 2026

  The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the June 25, 2026, injunction in the 23-state case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It also requested that the injunction be stayed.

• July 1, 2026

  U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan blocked the federal government from implementing a proposed rule to carry out Section 3 of the executive order nationally. Sullivan ruled that the rule violated a 2021 settlement agreement between the NAACP and the USPS. In his opinion, Sullivan wrote that "The Proposed Rule violates paragraph 2 of the Agreement because the Postal Service cannot post documents reflecting 'practices and policies for prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of Election Mail' if its policies provide that it will not accept 'noncompliant mailings' and therefore will not deliver mail-in or absentee ballots to some voters."

  July 1 district court opinion

• June 25, 2026

  U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an injunction in the 23-state case blocking the federal government from implementing Sections 2 and 3 of the executive order in the November general election in 23 states and Washington, D.C. Talwani wrote of Section 2 that “the creation of the Confirmed Citizen Lists is ultra vires because the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State,” and of Section 3 that "USPS lacks authority to promulgate regulations on voting and the EO’s directive that USPS do so constitutes ultra vires executive action." She concluded that "Sections 2 and 3 of the EO are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers, and that Section 5 of the EO is merely precatory." She blocked the federal government from “implementing or giving effect to Sections 2 and 3 of the EO with respect to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election in the Plaintiff States[.]"

  White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said that the March 2026 executive order "lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation."

  June 25 district court opinion

• June 3, 2026

  The NAACP filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the executive order violated a 2021 settlement agreement in which the USPS agreed to "'prioritiz[e] . . . the timely delivery of Election Mail' for every national election through 2028." The NAACP asked the court to declare that the USPS' proposed rule implementing the executive order violated the terms of the settlement agreement.

• May 28, 2026

  U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the DSCC case, writing that "the Postal Service has not yet issued a notice of proposed rulemaking or responded to comments it might receive, let alone adopted a final rule. Until then, Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe, and they cannot establish that they would suffer harm that is both imminent and irreparable absent preliminary injunctive relief." Read the full opinion below.

  May 28 district court opinion

• April 10, 2026

  Plaintiffs in the DSCC case filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the executive order.

• April 9, 2026

  The three cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were consolidated under the case Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Trump (the DSCC case).

• April 3, 2026

  Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and Washington, D.C., as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D), filed a lawsuit (the 23-state case) in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. Attorneys general from California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin joined the complaint. The lawsuit argued that the order violated separation of powers, interfered with the states' operation of absentee/mail-in voting, and was an unlawful document preservation mandate.

• April 3, 2026

  The NAACP, Common Cause, Common Cause Education Fund, Black Voters Matter, and the BVM Capacity Building Institute filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. The lawsuit argued that the order violated separation of powers, was an unconstitutional executive action, exceeded USPS' statutory authority, and violated federal statutes.

• April 2, 2026

  The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters Lotte E. Scharfman Memorial Education Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, League of Women Voters Education Fund, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts challenging the executive order. The lawsuit argued that the order violated separation of powers, was an unconstitutional executive action, and violated federal statutes.

• April 2, 2026

  The League of United Latin Americans Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative, and the Arizona Students’ Association filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. The lawsuit argued that the order was an unconstitutional executive action and violated federal statutes.

• April 1, 2026

  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D), and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. The lawsuit argued that the order exceeded USPS' statutory authority and violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

---

View all

Absentee/mail-in voting legislation

The table below lists bills related to absentee/mail in voting introduced during (or carried over to) each state's regular legislative session this year. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by state and then by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Policy Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

Explore election legislation with Ballotpedia

• 
  Try Ballotpedia's Election Policy Legislation Tracker

  Ballotpedia's Election Policy Legislation Tracker provides daily updates on legislative activity related to election policy in all 50 states.
  
  Our election policy experts translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries. And because it's from Ballotpedia, our legislation tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.
  Search bills
• 
  Read Ballotpedia's State of Election Policy Legislation Reports

  Ballotpedia publishes regular analysis of election policy legislation, including three full reports per year, providing ongoing coverage of legislative activity affecting election policy in each state.
  
  These reports deliver insights into partisan priorities, dive deep into notable trends, and highlight activity in key states.
  Read the latest report
• 
  
  Subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin

  The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy.
  
  The newsletter tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Policy Legislation Tracker.
  Subscribe

See also

• Arguments for and against no-excuse absentee/mail-in voting
• Timelines related to absentee/mail-in ballot processing and counting
• Factors affecting the speed of ballot counting and delivery of unofficial election results
• Cure period for absentee and mail-in ballots
• All-mail voting

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Faythann Fallon • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Lara Bonatesta • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Nick Katers • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Glorie Martinez • Stefan Martinez-Ruiz • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Kate Mcquarrie • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Savannah Susen • Collin Sutrick • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates