FSU Law Students Help Shape Supreme Court Case That Could Restrict Ballot Counting Nationwide

When Student Work Becomes Ammunition in Voting Rights Battles

Florida State University law students got more than classroom credit this semester -- they helped build the legal foundation for a Supreme Court case that could make it harder to vote in federal elections across the country.

Students in FSU's Supreme Court Litigation course, led by Professor Michael T. Morley and Election Law Center Executive Director Maureen Wagner Vinson, filed an amicus brief in Watson v. RNC, a case challenging Mississippi's law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five days. The Republican National Committee argues that federal law requires all ballots to be received by Election Day itself, not just mailed by then.

During March 23 oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh directly cited Morley's brief -- a moment that sent students scrambling to YouTube to hear their professor's name invoked from the bench.

"The feeling of going to that YouTube link and hearing Professor Morley's name being cited by Justice Kavanaugh was surreal," said second-year law student Lauren Bina.

Third-year student Spencer Moreno called it "almost like a jump scare."

The Stakes: Ballot Deadlines in a Divided Nation

At issue is whether states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day in federal races, even if voters mailed them on time. Mississippi is one of 19 states that allow post-Election Day ballot receipt windows -- policies designed to accommodate mail delays and ensure that votes cast on time are counted.

The RNC claims these grace periods violate federal statutes establishing Election Day as a single, fixed date. If the Supreme Court agrees, millions of ballots could be at risk in future elections, particularly in states where mail service is slow or unreliable.

The FSU brief argues that Congress intended Election Day statutes to prevent fraud and protect "public confidence" in election outcomes -- a framing that echoes broader Republican narratives about election integrity, often deployed to justify voting restrictions despite negligible evidence of fraud.

To make their case, Morley and his students dug through congressional records from the 1840s and 1880s, mining floor debates and speeches for evidence of original legislative intent.

"We were reviewing congressional record transcripts from the 1840s and the 1880s and piecing together the different floor statements that were made, the debates, the speeches, in order to tease out what the congressional purpose and the congressional intent was," Morley told FSU News.

Originalism as a Tool for Restricting Access

The brief's reliance on 19th-century legislative history is classic originalist methodology -- the interpretive approach favored by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. But originalism is not a neutral analytical tool. It privileges the perspectives of lawmakers from an era when women and Black Americans could not vote, and when mail-in voting did not exist.

Applying 1880s congressional intent to modern election administration means ignoring how voting has evolved -- and how barriers to ballot access disproportionately affect marginalized communities today.

The FSU brief does not grapple with those realities. Instead, it treats Election Day deadlines as a matter of historical fidelity, not contemporary voting rights.

The FSU Election Law Center's Growing Influence

The citation in oral arguments is a win for FSU's Election Law Center, which has positioned itself as a national player in election law scholarship and litigation. The center's spring conference in Washington, D.C., will convene top election law scholars, policymakers, and litigators to discuss pressing issues in American elections.

Dean Erin O'Hara O'Connor praised the student work as an example of "hands-on, high-impact learning," noting that FSU Law students are "not only studying the law -- they are helping shape it."

That is true. But shaping the law is not a neutral act. The FSU brief supports a legal theory that would make voting harder, particularly for people who rely on mail ballots and live in areas with slow postal service.

For students like Moreno, the thrill of being cited by the Supreme Court overshadowed any consideration of the brief's real-world impact.

"The fact that they actually did read it and listened to our argument, we're very pleased for sure," he said.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court's decision in Watson v. RNC could arrive by summer. If the Court sides with the RNC, states will be forced to reject ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if voters mailed them on time. That would disproportionately affect military voters, rural communities, and anyone living in areas with unreliable mail service.

It would also hand Republicans a powerful tool to challenge election results in close races, particularly in swing states where ballot-counting deadlines have been flashpoints in recent cycles.

The FSU students who worked on the brief may not have intended to restrict voting access. But intent does not determine impact. Their work is now part of a broader legal strategy to narrow the window for casting ballots in federal elections -- a strategy that, if successful, will make American democracy less accessible, not more.