A man with disabilities stands indoors at a busy event space holding a sign that reads “I’M VOTING BECAUSE… it’s my voice!” The sign has The Arc logo in the top left and the hashtag #REVUP in the bottom right.

Supreme Court Protects Mail Voting in Major Win for Voters with Disabilities

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to count if they arrive shortly afterward.

In a 5-4 decision on June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received up to five days later to be counted. For many voters with disabilities, this is a major protection for the right to vote. Many voters with disabilities rely on mail voting because in-person voting can come with real barriers, including inaccessible transportation, inaccessible polling places, and long lines. By rejecting a challenge that could have threatened similar laws in other states, the Court preserved an important path to the ballot box for voters with disabilities.

“For many voters with disabilities, mail voting is an essential way to participate in elections,” said Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel for The Arc of the United States. “Too many disabled voters already face barriers at every step of the process, from getting to the polls to accessing a ballot and having it counted. This decision helps protect an important voting option that many people with disabilities rely on. That matters because election outcomes shape the systems, supports, and rights many people with disabilities depend on every day.”

What is Watson v. Republican National Committee about?

This case asked whether federal law allows states to count mail ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive after Election Day.

Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count mailed ballots sent by Election Day but arrive shortly afterward. That made this case much bigger than one state. If the challengers had won, the ruling could have put similar ballot receipt rules at risk across the country, including rules that help many voters with disabilities cast a ballot that counts.

What happened in Watson v. Republican National Committee?

In 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and two individual plaintiffs sued Mississippi election officials, arguing that federal law requires ballots in federal elections to be received by Election Day, not just mailed by then.

A federal district court rejected that argument and upheld Mississippi’s law. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that Mississippi’s ballot receipt rule conflicted with federal election-day statutes. Mississippi then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Watson v. Republican National Committee?

The Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s law. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court held that federal election-day statutes don’t require ballots to be received by Election Day. Instead, those statutes set the day votes must be cast. States remain free to decide when timely mailed ballots must be received.

The Court emphasized that the question before it was narrow. It wasn’t deciding whether absentee voting is lawful or whether votes may be counted after Election Day. It was deciding whether federal law blocks states from counting ballots that were cast on time but arrived later. The answer was no. The Court also pointed to federal law protecting military and overseas voters as further evidence that state law controls ballot receipt deadlines.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He argued that ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted in federal elections.

Why The Arc supports accessible vote-by-mail options for voters with disabilities

The Arc’s position is clear: people with disabilities have the same right to vote as everyone else, and they have the right to the accommodations, assistance, and supports they need to exercise that right. You can read more in our position statement on human and civil rights.

Voting by mail is an important and accessible option for millions of voters with disabilities across the country. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission study found that close to three-fifths of voters with disabilities voted with a mail ballot or early in person in 2022, compared with just over half of voters without disabilities. The same study found that voting difficulties were still much higher for voters with disabilities than for voters without disabilities.

That’s why efforts to make mail voting harder can hit voters with disabilities especially hard. If a voter follows the rules and mails a ballot on time, that ballot should count. Voters with disabilities shouldn’t lose their vote because of postal delays that are outside their control.

Why does the Watson v. Republican National Committee case matter for people with disabilities?

This decision matters because voters with disabilities disproportionately rely on mail voting to participate in elections. If the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the other way, some voters with disabilities could have lost their vote even after doing everything right.

It also matters because this ruling recognizes a simple point: casting a ballot and receiving a ballot aren’t the same thing. For voters who depend on mail voting, that distinction can determine whether their vote counts. The Court’s decision preserved a rule that helps protect disabled voters from being disenfranchised by delays they cannot control.

At the same time, this ruling isn’t the end of the work. Accessible democracy requires more than one voting method. States should make both mail voting and in-person voting fully accessible so that no eligible voter is pushed out of the democratic process.

Where can I learn more about Watson v. Republican National Committee?

Watson v. Republican National Committee FAQ: Mail Ballots and Disability Voting Rights

Can states count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were mailed on time?

Yes. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not require mail ballots to be received by Election Day. States can count ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and arrive shortly afterward if state law allows it.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Watson v. Republican National Committee?

The Court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they are received up to five business days later.

Why does the Watson v. Republican National Committee ruling matter for voters with disabilities?

It matters because many voters with disabilities rely on mail voting, and rejecting ballots that were mailed on time could disenfranchise them. A national Election Assistance Commission study found that voters with disabilities were more likely than voters without disabilities to vote by mail or early in person in 2022.

Could the Watson v. Republican National Committee decision affect mail ballot rules outside Mississippi?

Yes. The Supreme Court noted that Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by Election Day and received afterward, so the ruling could matter well beyond Mississippi.

Group picture of people with disabilities and other advocates after attending a Medicaid work requirements hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC

How Ohio Families Defended Medicaid Support for Family Caregivers

/in /by Jackie Dilworth

Around the country, everyday families are piecing together caregiving because they have no other choice. Some states have found ways to support family caregivers in ways that make it work for people with disabilities, their loved ones, and the care system.

In a structured program, monitored by the state Medicaid agency, some family caregivers are paid a modest amount to support their loved one. It gives the person with a disability a reliable and familiar caregiver, and it takes some pressure of families juggling all aspects of their lives – work, family, caregiving, and more.

But when Ohio lawmakers prepared to vote on legislation that would prohibit family members from being paid through Medicaid programs, disability advocates and families mobilized immediately.

Family Caregivers Are the Backbone of America’s Care System

Family caregivers are already doing the work that keeps America’s long term care system functioning.

According to a recent AARP report, family caregivers now provide more than $1 trillion worth of care each year in the United States. Nearly 59 million Americans care for aging parents, spouses, children with disabilities, neighbors, and other loved ones, contributing an estimated 49.5 billion hours of care annually. If that care were compensated at market rates, it would be valued at approximately $1.01 trillion every year.

Most of this work is unpaid. 

Family caregivers help loved ones bathe, dress, prepare meals, manage medications, attend medical appointments, and increasingly perform complex medical and nursing tasks that were once provided in institutional settings.

More than half of family caregivers now provide high intensity care, averaging 27 hours of caregiving each week. The 49.5 billion hours of care they provide annually is equivalent to nearly 24 million full-time workers, roughly 17 percent of the entire U.S. workforce.

This caregiving work is not optional.

Ohio, like many states, faces a severe direct care workforce shortage.

Providers frequently struggle to fill authorized care hours, leaving families to step in and provide support that Medicaid cannot otherwise deliver. Without family caregivers, many people would go without critical assistance with daily activities, medication management, transportation, and personal care.

Without these caregivers, millions more Americans would rely on expensive institutional care, dramatically increasing costs for taxpayers. In fact, the economic value of family caregiving now exceeds total federal, state, and local Medicaid spending nationwide.

Ohio’s Disability Community Mobilized Quickly

The proposal moved quickly, but so did Ohio’s disability community.

The Arc of Ohio, self-advocates, family caregivers, providers, and aging advocates mobilized rapidly to educate lawmakers about the devastating consequences the proposal would have for people with disabilities and older adults. Committee hearings were packed with people with disabilities, family caregivers, and advocates who shared deeply personal stories about what Medicaid-funded family caregiving makes possible and what would happen if that support disappeared. Wheelchairs lined the hearing room as lawmakers listened to testimony from families who described the realities of navigating a strained care system and the essential role they play in keeping their loved ones safe at home.

The testimony shifted the conversation to the real experiences of Ohio families. Several legislators were visibly moved during the hearings.

Within hours, the proposal to prohibit family caregiver payments had been removed from the bill, demonstrating the power of coordinated advocacy and authentic lived experience.

The Bigger Problem: When Allegations of Fraud Becomes an Excuse to Cut Care

The Ohio debate reflects a troubling national trend.

Across the country, allegations of fraud are increasingly being used to justify greater scrutiny of Medicaid, home and community-based services (HCBS), and family caregiving programs. Program integrity matters and fraud should be rooted out. But in the process, what’s happening around the country now is making it harder for people to access the care they need.

Medicaid and other safety net programs are already subject to extensive federal and state oversight, and the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries, family caregivers, and providers follow the rules. Yet fraud narratives increasingly cast suspicion on family caregivers and community-based providers who fill critical gaps in an already strained care system.

These attacks go beyond program integrity. They devalue caregiving, undermine the rights of people with disabilities to receive services at home, and threaten a care infrastructure that depends on family caregivers, whose unpaid contributions exceed $1 trillion annually.

What’s Next and How You Can Help

Advocates in Ohio prevailed. Following overwhelming opposition from people with disabilities, families, and advocates, the proposal to eliminate Medicaid waiver payments for family caregivers was removed from the legislation moving forward.

This victory was built on decades of advocacy by self-advocates, family members, disability rights organizations, and The Arc’s network.

Right now, The Arc of the United States and our chapters are pushing back against threats to Medicaid, HCBS, and other programs that make community living possible. And those threats are coming from many avenues.

You can help by: