Podcast Summary: Federalist Radio Hour

Episode: Does Election Day Mean Anything Anymore?
Host: Matt Kittle (Senior Elections Correspondent, The Federalist)
Guest: Jason Snead (Executive Director, Honest Elections Project)
Date: March 24, 2026

Overview

This episode dives into the contentious debate over the meaning of "Election Day" in America, in light of oral arguments recently heard by the Supreme Court regarding Watson v. RNC. This case challenges a Mississippi law permitting election officials to accept mail-in ballots for up to five business days after Election Day if postmarked by the day of the contest. The conversation with Jason Snead explores the historical precedent, legal arguments, public trust, the specter of fraud, and the broader implication of extending election deadlines on election integrity and public confidence.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is at Stake in Watson v. RNC?

• (02:54–05:05)

  • The heart of the case: “Does election day mean election day?” Is a ballot “cast” when filled out, or when received by officials?
  • For most of American history, ballots had to be received by officials on Election Day to count.
  • Only exceptional circumstances, like wartime and very recent decades, saw ballots being accepted after Election Day.
  • Recent expansions mainly stem from policy changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, then made permanent in some states.

  Quote:

  “For most of the nation's history, we have understood and we have gone to great pains to establish very clear rules that say ballots must be in the possession of officials by the end of election day in order to be counted.”
  – Jason Snead (03:33)

2. Historical Context of Election Day

• (05:05–09:18)

  • Prior to 1845, states had a 34-day window to select presidential electors.
  • Congress set a uniform Election Day in 1845 to bring consistency and reduce the risk or perception of fraud.
  • Even during the Civil War, absentee ballots were typically taken into official possession by Election Day.
  • The recent widespread acceptance of late-arriving ballots is very new and mostly post-2020.

  Quote:

  “Out of 250 years of national history, really only the last five or so has seen this kind of widespread sense that it is in fact okay to allow ballots to come in days or even weeks after the election is over.”
  – Jason Snead (09:12)

3. Impacts of Extended Ballot Deadlines on Results

• (09:18–14:07)

  • Matt Kittle highlights chaos in recent elections (ex. California 2024, Nevada 2022) where results shift days after Election Day due to incoming ballots.
  • Snead stresses public perception: changing results and ongoing counts erode confidence.
  • Not all states require postmarks on late ballots; this increases skepticism over legitimacy.
  • The argument is that without a hard deadline, the meaning of Election Day is lost.

  Quote:

  “Perception essentially is reality... Not only if you are watching election results change potentially dramatically after the voting period is supposed to be over... but then also if they're counting ballots that don't even have any indication that they were voted before the election was over, that is a recipe for public skepticism.”
  – Jason Snead (11:30)

4. Justice Alito’s Common Sense Test

• (14:07–19:17)

  • Justice Alito (during oral arguments) compared "Election Day" to other “day” holidays—pointing out the obvious: a day is a day.
  • The show lampoons the idea of extending “Election Day” for weeks.
  • Snead argues that efforts to redefine Election Day through elaborate legal argument “overcomplicates” what most people understand plainly.

  Quote:

  “We don't have election day anymore. We have election month or we have election months.”
  – Matt Kittle (15:40)
  “Most people would say the election isn't over... [it’s over] when the ballots stop coming in and when you stop counting those new ballots.”
  – Jason Snead (18:42)

5. Fraud and Mail-In Voting Concerns

• (19:17–24:46)

  • Snead details past work tracking election fraud—stresses that instances involving more than one or two votes almost always involve mail voting.
  • Extended deadlines could tempt people to submit late ballots, especially if postmarks are unreliable or not required.
  • This creates both actual and perceived risk, further undermining faith in results.

  Quote:

  “I'm almost certain that illegal votes have been counted in these races... It's extraordinarily difficult to prevent fraud in [mail voting] contexts. So that's where if you're going to do something like a widespread fraud scandal, that's where it's going to be.”
  – Jason Snead (22:46)

6. Judicial Activism and the Role of the Postal Service

• (25:46–30:45)

  • Snead discusses “form shopping”—litigants choosing friendly judges to strike election security laws.
  • COVID litigation led to widespread judicial rewrites of state laws—sometimes through “collusive” settlements.
  • Mail ballots rely on the U.S. Postal Service, which isn’t infallible.
  • States can't truly control or regulate the postal service, yet are offloading crucial democratic responsibility to it.

  Quote:

  “They... are outsourcing a critical piece of the democratic process, the hand handling of ballots, to an agency that they do not control, that they cannot regulate, and that thinks that if they lose only 5% of the mail pieces in their possession on any given day, that's actually a really good day.”
  – Jason Snead (28:10)

7. Progressive Legal Arguments and Court Divisions

• (32:18–37:59)

  • Liberal Justices (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sotomayor) defend late ballot deadlines; argue no explicit Congressional ban.
  • Snead critiques their logic, describing it as “grasping at straws”: “If the law says [polls are open] 7am to 7pm... it doesn't say they can’t be open 24 hours” is the gist of their argument, which he finds absurd.

  Quote:

  “They're always saying the law says that elections shall be run according to X, but they don't say Y and therefore you can do Y. And that's a pretty absurd way to read the law.”
  – Jason Snead (34:56)

8. Voter Suppression Rhetoric and the Public

• (37:59–42:22)

  • The “suppression” argument is dissected—left often frames election integrity measures as racist or oppressive.
  • Snead says data shows extending deadlines does not reduce ballot rejection, and may sometimes increase it.
  • States that shortened grace periods actually reduced rejected or late ballots.

  Quote:

  “There is no data to sustain this... claim that these ballot deadlines are either A essential or B, they actually do ensure that every vote counts. Really. They just set voters up for failure...”
  – Jason Snead (41:23)

9. Non-Citizen Voting and the Broader Battle

• (42:22–47:24)

  • Discussion on the Save America Act and requirements for voter verification.
  • Snead: the conflict is not even between parties, but "between the far left and the rest of us."
  • Strong bipartisan popular support for common-sense measures like ID and ballot deadlines; elected Democrats are out of step with their own voters.
  • The "election integrity deniers" label is offered as a counter to accusations of election denialism.

  Quote:

  “We found 80%, 83% public support for the idea that all ballots should be received by Election Day. And that's overwhelming bipartisan support.”
  – Jason Snead (46:24)

10. Predictions and the Way Forward

• (47:24–53:09)

  • Kittle and Snead discuss where the Supreme Court might land.
  • Snead is optimistic that the justices will put an end to late ballot acceptance and restore a nationwide Election Day cut-off.
  • He points out that states have enough time to comply and educate voters before the midterms if the ruling comes mid-year.
  • Foresees claims of “chaos” from those who opposed the change.

  Quote:

  “I'm confident that we'll get a good ruling out of the court and that if it's applied in the midterms, it need not lead to chaos, but it will lead to a major gain for election integrity nationwide and it'll bring some sanity back to the voting process before the midterm elections.”
  – Jason Snead (51:35)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Election Day’s Meaning

  “We don't have election day anymore. We have election month or... months.”
  – Matt Kittle (15:40)

• On Judicial Activism

  “Time and time again activist judges... will enjoin common sense election laws essentially the moment that they are passed.”
  – Jason Snead (26:34)

• On Public Sentiment

  “This really is... another front in this debate where the left is trying to argue for policies that level down on security that are not supported by the average everyday American. And really it's all just about rigging the rules to the left's advantage.”
  – Jason Snead (46:52)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:54] – Introduction of the case and stakes
• [05:05] – History of Election Day legislation
• [09:18] – Modern examples and public perception of chaos
• [14:07] – Justice Alito’s “Election Day” analogy and implications
• [19:17] – Fraud concerns with extended ballot deadlines
• [25:46] – Judicial activism and perils of mail-based voting
• [32:18] – Divided Supreme Court and legal interpretations
• [37:59] – Rebuttal of suppression arguments; data-driven evidence
• [42:22] – Non-citizen voting and nationwide integrity debate
• [47:24] – Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling and concluding takeaways

Tone and Language

The conversation is forthright and analytical, yet lively and occasionally wry, especially when skewering what the hosts see as illogical or partisan arguments from the left. Both Kittle and Snead emphasize historical precedent, rule of law, and plain common sense, often countering “suppression” rhetoric with polling data and anecdotes from election history.

This summary captures the full scope and flavor of the episode, providing both detailed context on “Election Day” debates and a digest of legal and cultural arguments shaping the future of federal elections.