As the U.S. military marks its 250th year, honoring the sacrifices made to safeguard freedoms and democracy, ensuring service members and their families can freely participate in elections is paramount.

However, the Supreme Court’s consideration of a case poses a potential threat to the voting rights of military personnel and their engagement in the democracy they defend.

The case challenges a Mississippi law that counts mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within five business days. Over two dozen other states have which provide flexibility for military members voting from overseas. This SCOTUS case could affect these service members and disrupt the tradition of military voting.

For over 150 years, the U.S. has facilitated voting for troops stationed abroad. Absentee voting began during the Civil War, when passed laws allowed soldiers to vote from the battlefield. That year, roughly exercised their freedom to vote from the front lines of the war.

While battlefields and technology have evolved, the principle remains. Service members are stationed globally, facing unique voting challenges such as frequent moves, limited mail access, and the need to protect personal data.

These voters must also adhere to strict rules from their home states to ensure secure votes.

Historically, state and federal leaders have collaborated to address these obstacles. The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 and the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 mandated states send ballots to service members, but lacked standardization. Congress addressed this in 1986 with the (UOCAVA), creating uniform tools for secure military voting. In 2009, Congress by requiring ballots to be sent at least 45 days before federal elections and mandating that ballots be available electronically.

Recently, this unifying issue has become politicized. Existing laws protecting military voters have been caught in a , , an , and that altogether make it harder for military voters and their families to participate in American elections. States like Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have to mail-in voting processes—and by extension, to overseas and military voters—through burdensome and narrow residency requirements for voting by mail. None of these bills passed in 2025, but efforts to restrict mail-in voting continue today.

offers a cautionary tale of just how at-risk military and overseas voters are today. State supreme court candidate Judge Jefferson Griffin demanded that courts throw out 1,675 valid in a contentious legal battle over his narrow loss in the 2024 Supreme Court election. Griffin’s lawsuit challenged ballots cast by military and overseas voters, even though they had followed state law when they registered to vote and cast their ballots. While Griffin , his efforts to invalidate these votes cast doubt on the system that ensures American men and women serving our country overseas have a voice in our democracy back home.

The truth is that military and overseas voting is a secure, reliable way for military families to vote. Every voter must prove they’re a and provide personal identification, such as their date of birth, Social Security number, and driver’s license number. Election officials from both parties verify voter eligibility and identity through measures like signature matching while protecting ballot privacy.

Despite a strong system, military families deserve , and states are showing leadership. Thirty-one states now offer secure , allowing online ballot submission. Given international mail challenges, count military voters’ ballots postmarked by Election Day but received a few days after the election. States like California, Colorado, Georgia, and South Dakota have established clear rules ensuring military members and families can vote, even if born abroad.

Whether in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or Space Force, service members swear to protect the Constitution. Hindering their voting access undermines the ideals they defend.

These brave individuals understand the importance of voting. We must urge elected officials to protect this tradition as a matter of common sense and patriotic duty.

“`