Alito blasts latest SCOTUS ballot ruling as invitation to 'voter fraud' risks

Justice Samuel Alito cautioned on Monday that the Supreme Court's decision to allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted could lead large sections of the public to view elections as illegitimate.

While Alito had legal concerns with the majority's ruling, arguing that they misinterpreted when the "electorate's choice" occurs, he closed his dissent by issuing a practical warning. Allowing late-arriving ballots to determine the outcomes of elections long after Election Day will, according to Alito, severely damage the trust Americans place in their electoral system.

"Not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences," he wrote. "The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

Alito didn't simply claim that the ruling could affect how people view elections; he argued that it could open the door for fraud.

"Today's decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans' faith in the integrity of this country's elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud," Alito continued. "In 2005, a committee chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker found that absentee voting was 'the largest source of potential voter fraud' in American elections."

"I'm relieved the Supreme Court is not interfering with Washington's mail-in ballot system," Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., wrote on X. "If you work a shift job, have young kids, or live out in the woods, you can't just knock off for the day to go stand in line at a polling place. For decades, Washington's secure vote by mail system has made it easy for these folks to participate in democracy and make their voice heard."

The majority, however, did not address whether allowing late ballots to be counted was good policy, stating that such a consideration is outside the scope of what the court has authority to rule on.