Title: Grossman v. Secretary of the Commonwealth

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12996 
 
REBECCA GROSSMAN & others1  vs.  SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
Suffolk.     August 24, 2020. - August 26, 2020. 
 
Present:  Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Elections, Ballot, Primary.  Secretary of the Commonwealth.  
Constitutional Law, Elections. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on August 19, 2020. 
 
 
The case was reported by Kafker, J. 
 
 
Jeffrey S. Robbins for the plaintiffs. 
Anne Sterman, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
defendant. 
 
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: 
 
William G. Cosmas, Jr., for Robert Goldstein. 
 
Torey B. Cummings, Assistant United States Attorney, for 
the United States. 
 
Matthew R. Segal, Ruth A. Bourquin, & Jessica J. Lewis for 
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. 
 
Michael Walsh, pro se. 
 
 
                                                          
 
 
1 Becky Grossman for Congress, Jonathan Levenfeld, Sophie 
Kripp, and Shirley D. Grossman, on behalf of themselves and 
others similarly situated. 
2 
 
 
KAFKER, J.  In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
Legislature passed an emergency law designed to increase voting 
options in the September 1, 2020, primary election as well as 
the November 3, 2020, general election.  See St. 2020, c. 115.  
A prominent additional voting option included in the act is 
expansive voting by mail.  For the primary election, voters may 
apply for a "mail-in" ballot, so long as their application to 
vote by mail is received before 5 P.M. on Wednesday, August 26, 
2020.  See St. 2020, c. 115, § 6 (e) (2).  Those mail-in primary 
election ballots must be completed and received by local 
election officials before 8 P.M. on September 1.See St. 2020, 
c. 115, § 6 (h) (3); G. L. c. 53, § 43.  The mail-in ballots can 
be returned by mail, dropped off in drop boxes provided by local 
officials, or hand-delivered to election officials.  See 
St. 2020, c. 115, § 6 (h) (1).  A voter who has requested a 
mail-in ballot can also choose to vote in person on either 
election day, as always, or between August 22 and 28, 2020, at 
early polling locations established pursuant to the act, in lieu 
of submitting his or her mail-in ballot.  See St. 2020, c. 115, 
§ 7 (b) (1). 
The plaintiffs, consisting of a candidate in the primary 
election, her campaign, and a few identified Massachusetts 
registered voters, contend that the September 1 deadline for the 
receipt of mail-in ballots significantly interferes with the 
3 
 
 
constitutional right to vote.  They seek an order from this 
court requiring the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) to 
accept mail-in ballots that are received within ten days of the 
primary election, so long as those ballots are postmarked by 
September 1.2 
Having reviewed the emergency law and its implementation by 
the Secretary, we conclude that the existing September 1 
deadline is constitutional.  The new law does not significantly 
interfere with the constitutional right to vote in the September 
1 primary election.  Rather, the legislation enhances the right 
to vote in the primary, as well as the general, election, by 
providing multiple means of voting, including options to vote by 
mail that previously never existed.  The September 1 deadline 
for the receipt of mail-in and other ballots for the primary 
election is also reasonably designed to account for a number of 
time-sensitive legal requirements that follow shortly after the 
primary election, including those that provide for recounts and 
challenges, as well as the timely mailing of ballots to military 
                                                          
 
2 At the time of their original complaint, three of the 
individual plaintiffs asserted that they had applied for, but 
not yet received, their mail-in ballots for the primary 
election.  The Secretary has since averred that the ballots for 
two of these individual plaintiffs were mailed on August 15, 
2020.  The third plaintiff originally applied for an absentee 
ballot to be sent to her college, which was closed at the time.  
The Secretary has averred that she has since applied for, and 
been mailed, a second ballot at her local residence. 
4 
 
 
and overseas voters, which is required by Federal law.  A time-
defined primary election process, with reasonable deadlines, 
including the September 1 deadline at issue, is necessary to 
ensure not only compliance with Federal law but also full 
participation and a fair and orderly general election in 
November.  Finally, for those who requested or received mail-in 
ballots very late in the process, there remain multiple 
alternatives to simply mailing back the ballots to ensure that 
one's vote is counted in the primary election.  In sum, the new 
law enhances and does not diminish the means of voting in the 
primary election.3 
Background.  Effective July 6, 2020, the Legislature passed 
"An Act relative to voting options in response to COVID-19" 
(act).  See St. 2020, c. 115.  The act was intended to increase 
voting options for the 2020 elections in light of the safety 
risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.  See id.  Among other 
things, it decreases barriers to registering to vote, increases 
in-person voting options, calls for new safety protocols for in-
person voting, expands the availability of absentee ballots, and 
implements a Statewide plan for voting by mail in the 2020 
                                                          
 
3 We acknowledge the amicus letters submitted by Robert 
Goldstein, Michael Walsh, and the American Civil Liberties Union 
of Massachusetts, Inc., as well as the amicus brief submitted by 
the United States. 
5 
 
 
primary and general elections.  See St. 2020, c. 115, §§ 6 (b), 
7, 15, 17, 18, 19. 
1.  Applying to vote by mail.  The additional voting option 
at issue here allows any voter to cast his or her ballot by mail 
in the 2020 primary and general elections.  See St. 2020, 
c. 115, § 6 (b).  To do so, a voter must complete an application 
to vote by mail and return it to the city or town clerk's office 
before 5 P.M. on Wednesday, August 26, 2020.  See St. 2020, 
c. 115, § 6 (e) (1), (2).4, 5 
Once a voter's application is received, a ballot is sent to 
the voter's address along with instructions and return envelopes 
with prepaid, first-class postage.  See St. 2020, c. 115, 
§ 6 (e) (1), (g) (1).  The Secretary has created a ballot 
tracking database that allows voters to confirm in real time 
whether their application has been received, as well as the date 
                                                          
 
4 Under the act, the Secretary was required to automatically 
disseminate applications by July 15, 2020 to all voters who 
registered to vote before July 1, 2020.  See St. 2020, c. 115, 
§ 6 (d) (1).  The Secretary in fact sent out the applications 
one week later, on July 22, 2020.  Voters can also access the 
application form online.  See 2020 Vote by Mail Application, 
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/2020-Vote-by-Mail-
Application.pdf [https://perma.cc/SY6A-RGS3].  An online 
application form may be returned by mail, facsimile, e-mail, or 
in-person delivery.  See id. 
 
5 Alternatively, voters who have timely submitted an 
application may choose to receive their ballot in person at the 
city or town clerk's office.  See St. 2020, c. 115, § 6 (e) (1), 
(g) (1). 
6 
 
 
on which their blank ballot was mailed to them.  See Secretary 
of the Commonwealth, Elections and Voting:  Track My Ballot, 
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/wheredoivotema/track/trackmyballot 
.aspx [https://perma.cc/5HCV-XGGE].  See also Secretary of the 
Commonwealth, Voting by Mail FAQ, https://www.sec.state.ma.us 
/ele/eleev/early-voting-faq.htm [https://perma.cc/85NL-LG5T]. 
2.  Completing and returning mail-in ballots.  Once voters 
receive and complete their mail-in primary election ballot, they 
may submit the ballot in one of three ways.  First, voters may 
physically bring the completed ballot to the city or town 
clerk's office or an early voting location.6  St. 2020, c. 115, 
§ 6 (h) (1) (i).  See Secretary of the Commonwealth, Election 
Advisory # 20-01 (Aug. 17, 2020).  Second, voters may deposit 
their ballot into a secured municipal drop box provided by local 
election officials.  St. 2020, c. 115, § 6 (h) (1) (ii).  Third, 
voters may mail the ballot to the city or town clerk's office 
using the envelopes provided with the ballot.  St. 2020, c. 115, 
§ 6 (h) (1) (iii).  Regardless of the method selected, the 
primary election ballot must be received by the city or town 
clerk's office before 8 P.M. on Tuesday, September 1, 2020, in 
                                                          
 
6 Pursuant to guidance issued by the Secretary, ballots 
should not be submitted to polling locations on the actual 
election day itself, because such ballots must be checked at the 
local election office before they can be counted at a polling 
location.  See Secretary of the Commonwealth, Election Advisory 
# 20-01 (Aug. 17, 2020). 
7 
 
 
order to be counted.  See St. 2020, c. 115, § 6 (h) (3); G. L. 
c. 53, § 43.  Voters can also confirm that their completed 
ballot was received, and whether it was accepted or rejected, 
using the aforementioned ballot tracking database provided by 
the Secretary.  See Secretary of the Commonwealth, Voting by 
Mail FAQ, https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleev/early-voting-
faq.htm [https://perma.cc/85NL-LG5T]. 
3.  In-person voting.  Voters who have not yet returned 
their completed primary election ballot also have the option of 
voting in person.  See St. 2020, c. 115, § 24.  The act 
provides, for the first time, for a seven-day in-person early 
voting period from August 22, 2020, to August 28, 2020.  
St. 2020, c. 115, § 7 (b) (1).  Additionally, voters may still 
vote in person on election day, September 1.  See St. 2020, 
c. 115, § 24.7 
4.  Subsequent election deadlines.  After the September 1 
primary election, a number of deadlines follow in the period 
before the general election.  On or before September 4, any 
recount petitions must be filed with election officials.  See 
St. 2019, c. 142, § 88.  On September 5, local election 
                                                          
 
7 The act also tasks the Secretary with promulgating 
emergency regulations to implement protective measures at the 
polls, including social distancing, personal protective 
equipment, and the use of hand sanitizers.  See St. 2020, 
c. 115, § 19. 
8 
 
 
officials must certify primary election results.  See G. L. 
c. 53, § 52.  Any recounts must be completed by September 12, 
and any challenges to nomination papers must be heard and 
adjudicated by the State Ballot Law Commission by September 14.  
See St. 2019, c. 142, §§ 88, 90.  Subsequent to such recounts 
and adjudicatory decisions, the Secretary must prepare and print 
more than 500 different general election ballot styles required 
by all of the different districts and jurisdictions within the 
Commonwealth, and then disseminate them to local election 
officials by September 16 for distribution to military and 
overseas voters.  Under Federal law, these general election 
ballots for military and overseas voters must be distributed by 
local election officials by September 19, 2020.  See 52 U.S.C. 
§ 20302(a)(8)(A).  See also St. 2019, c. 142, § 91. 
5.  Recent issues at the United States Postal Service.  To 
the extent that ballot applications, mail-in ballots, and ballot 
return envelopes are transmitted by mail, the Secretary has 
directed that they be sent by the United States Postal Service 
(postal service) using first-class postage.  In a letter dated 
July 30, 2020, the general counsel for the postal service 
informed the Secretary of the potential effect of postal service 
processing times on the delivery of election materials.  The 
letter stated that certain Massachusetts "deadlines for 
requesting and casting mail-in ballots are incongruous with the 
9 
 
 
Postal Service's delivery standards."  The letter explained that 
most domestic first-class mail is delivered two to five days 
after it is received by the postal service.  Other mail is 
delivered more slowly.  The general counsel recommended that 
applications to vote by mail be submitted no later than fifteen 
days before election day, and completed ballots be mailed at 
least one week before election day.  Though the letter primarily 
addressed the feasibility of mail-in ballot deadlines pertaining 
to the 2020 general election, the primary election deadlines in 
Massachusetts also do not meet the general counsel's recommended 
timetable.  At the same time, however, the letter indicated that 
"the Postal Service is not purporting to definitively interpret 
the requirements of your state's election laws, and also is not 
recommending that such laws be changed to accommodate the Postal 
Service's delivery standards."  Rather, the letter stated that 
the postal service would be unable to adjust its delivery 
standards to accommodate the mail-in ballot deadlines.8 
                                                          
 
8 More recently, on August 21, 2020, the Postmaster General 
of the United States testified before the United States Senate 
as to recent changes at the United States Postal Service (postal 
service).  See Boston Globe, Postmaster pledges to prioritize 
election mail, but offers no plan to ensure timely delivery 
(Aug. 21, 2020) https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08/21/nation 
/postmaster-testify-before-senate-amid-uproar-over-mail/ 
[https://perma.cc/G6KY-Z4V2].  The Postmaster General told 
senators that he was not yet able to provide a plan to ensure 
the timely delivery of election ballots.  Id.  At the same time, 
he stated that the postal service was "fully capable and 
committed" to delivering election materials on time.  Id. 
10 
 
 
Discussion.  1.  Standard of review.  The right to vote, 
expressly provided by both art. 3 of the Amendments to the 
Massachusetts Constitution9 and art. 9 of the Massachusetts 
Declaration of Rights, 10 is fundamental.  See Chelsea 
Collaborative, Inc. v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 27, 
32-33 (2018) ("the fundamental right to vote is also implicitly 
protected under other provisions of the Declaration of Rights").  
At the same time, "the Constitution provides the Legislature 
with broad authority as part of the State's police power, to 
enact reasonable laws and regulations that are, in its judgment, 
appropriate."  Id. at 33.  See Opinion of the Justices, 368 
                                                          
 
 
 
9 Article 3 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts 
Constitution provides: 
 
"Every citizen of eighteen years of age and upwards, 
excepting persons who are incarcerated in a correctional 
facility due to a felony conviction, and, excepting persons 
under guardianship and persons temporarily or permanently 
disqualified by law because of corrupt practices in respect 
to elections who shall have resided within the town or 
district in which he may claim a right to vote, six 
calendar months next preceding any election of governor, 
lieutenant governor, senators, or representatives, shall 
have a right to vote in such election of governor, 
lieutenant governor, senators and representatives; and no 
other person shall be entitled to vote in such election." 
 
10 Article 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights 
provides:  "All elections ought to be free; and all the 
inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as 
they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal 
right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public 
employments." 
11 
 
 
Mass. 819, 821 (1975) ("The court has sustained statutes which 
reasonably regulate elections . . ."). 
Whenever we evaluate the constitutionality of a restriction 
on the right to vote, we apply a "sliding scale approach, . . . 
through which [we] weigh the character and magnitude of the 
burden the State's rule imposes on the plaintiffs' rights 
against the interests the State contends justify that burden, 
and consider the extent to which the State's concerns make the 
burden necessary."  Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 
484 Mass. 516, 524 (2020), quoting Libertarian Ass'n of Mass. v. 
Secretary of the Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 538, 560 (2012).11  
"Because the right to vote is a fundamental one protected by the 
Massachusetts Constitution, a statute that significantly 
interferes with that right is subject to strict judicial 
scrutiny" (citations omitted).  Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 
Mass. at 33.  "By contrast, statutes that do not significantly 
interfere with the right to vote but merely regulate and affect 
                                                          
 
 
11 As discussed in Chelsea Collaborative, Inc. v. Secretary 
of the Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 27, 34-35 (2018), the "sliding 
scale" approach originates from Federal constitutional 
jurisprudence.  However, as the court went on to note, "there 
may be circumstances where the Massachusetts Declaration of 
Rights and art. 3 require application of this analysis in a 
manner that guards more jealously against the exercise of the 
State's police power than the application of the framework under 
the Federal Constitution" (quotation and citation omitted).  Id. 
at 35. 
 
12 
 
 
the exercise of that right to a lesser degree are subject to 
rational basis review to assure their reasonableness."  Id.at 
34.12  Here, the parties dispute the standard of review that 
should apply to the September 1 deadline established under the 
act, with the plaintiffs urging that it is strict scrutiny, and 
the Secretary that it is rational basis.  Our first task, 
therefore, is to resolve that issue. 
2.  The burden of the September 1 deadline on the right to 
vote.  The plaintiffs argue that the September 1 deadline 
imposed under the act is a significant burden on their right to 
vote by mail.  There are multiple problems with this argument.  
First, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.  There 
is, rather, a more general constitutional right to vote.  
Second, voters, including those who have requested mail-in 
ballots, have multiple voting options, and thus are not limited 
to returning their ballots by mail.  Third, reasonable, firm 
deadlines for voting are necessary, particularly in the primary 
election process which must be completed in a timely manner to 
ensure an orderly general election.  For all of these reasons, 
as more fully discussed infra, we conclude that the September 1 
                                                          
 
12 As the court noted in Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 
Mass. at 36 n.22, "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" are 
"shorthand for referring to the opposite ends of a continuum of 
constitutional vulnerability determined at every point by the 
competing values involved" (citations omitted). 
13 
 
 
deadline for voting, which applies equally to voting by mail as 
well as in-person voting, does not significantly burden the 
right to vote given the multiple options available to voters, 
including those who have requested mail-in ballots. 
We begin by emphasizing that the expansion of the right to 
vote, by providing multiple voting options, was the 
Legislature's express purpose in adopting the act.  See 
St. 2020, c. 115, preamble ("Whereas, The deferred operation of 
this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to forthwith 
provide for increased voting options in response to COVID-19, 
therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, 
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health 
and convenience" [emphasis added]). 
Prior to the adoption of the act, voters effectively had 
two options for voting in a State primary election.  If they had 
a recognized excuse for not being able to vote in person on the 
date of the primary election, namely, a physical disability, 
religious objection, or absence from the Commonwealth, they 
could vote in advance using an absentee ballot.  See G. L. 
c. 54, § 86.  Otherwise, they had to vote in person.  In 
recognition of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact 
that it might have on the ability or desire of voters to appear 
in person to vote at a polling location, the Legislature (and 
the Governor) acted on July 6, 2020, to create a number of new 
14 
 
 
voting options in time for the September 1 primary election, as 
well as for the general election that follows on November 3.  
For the first time, voters can now vote in a primary election in 
person at early polling locations.13  Early in-person voting 
commenced on August 22, and is ongoing through August 28.  In 
addition, the act provided primary election voters, again for 
the first time, with the option of "no excuse" voting by mail, 
the option at issue here.  As to that option, the act also 
provided several different ways for voters to submit their mail-
in ballot so that it is received on or before the September 1 
deadline, only one of which requires reliance on the postal 
service.  See Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 Mass. at 39 
(describing widespread accessibility of voter registration 
process).  While voters do have the option of returning their 
ballot by mail, using the first-class postage-prepaid envelope 
provided by the Secretary for that purpose, they also can (1) 
deliver it in person to their city or town clerk's office, (2) 
deposit it in a secure drop box, if one is available in their 
city or town, or (3) deliver it in person to one of the 
aforementioned early polling locations or the city or town 
clerk's office.  Of course, voters also still have the option of 
                                                          
 
13 In 2014, the Legislature authorized limited early voting 
in State biennial elections, but not primaries.  See St. 2014, 
c. 111, § 12. 
15 
 
 
voting in person on September 1, in lieu of submitting their 
mail-in ballot.  Thus, when the act is examined as a whole, 
there can be no doubt that voters now have many more options for 
voting in the primary election than existed prior to the passage 
of the act, and multiple means of delivering their mail-in 
ballot before the September 1 deadline. 
This is not to suggest that the emergency act was prescient 
and anticipated all of the potential problems arising from the 
COVID-19 crisis.  In its effort to support applications and 
voting by mail, the Legislature may have been overly optimistic 
to expect that mail-in ballots could be requested by voters as 
late as August 26, be filled out and mailed back by voters, and 
be received by election officials on or before the September 1 
deadline.  The Legislature certainly could not have anticipated 
the recent postal service problems.  With that said, the 
Legislature did not leave the right to vote dependent on the 
vagaries of postal service efficiency.  The act provided voters 
with the opportunity to request mail-in ballots well before the 
August 26 deadline; while there was some initial delay in 
getting the applications for mail-in ballots out to registered 
voters, they did go out by July 22, well over a month before the 
August 26 deadline.  Moreover, the Secretary's website allows 
voters to track the receipt of their application, the date that 
their blank ballot is mailed, and the date that their completed 
16 
 
 
ballot is received.  For those voters who have experienced 
delays in receiving their mail-in ballots after applying for 
them, or for those who have not yet received or even applied for 
ballots, they have other options, as outlined supra, for making 
sure their ballot is received, or otherwise exercising their 
right to vote, by the September 1 deadline. 
Nor do we minimize the importance of voting by mail, 
especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.  For many 
voters, including those over the age of sixty-five and those 
with pre-existing conditions, for whom the coronavirus has 
proved so lethal, voting with minimal or no personal contact is 
rightly viewed as their only option.  The act, however, took 
this into account.  It provided, for the first time, for the 
option of a "no excuse" mail-in primary election ballot.  And 
while it extended the deadline for requesting and returning such 
a ballot perhaps too close to the due date to encourage this 
option, the over-all mail-in ballot process was laudable and 
reasonable.  Still further, the Legislature built in other 
contactless options, such as the use of drop boxes, for voters 
to use if they were not prepared or able to return their mail-in 
ballots by the September 1 deadline through the postal service.  
By providing all of these expanded voting options for the 
primary election, the Legislature did act to try to reduce the 
number of voters who would need to appear in person at polling 
17 
 
 
locations, either on election day or for early voting, which, in 
turn, one would reasonably expect to reduce the potential risk 
for the spread of the coronavirus.  Understandably, that will 
not make polling locations sufficiently "safe" for all voters, 
especially the most vulnerable, but it is another example of how 
the act has enhanced, not burdened, the right to vote during 
these unprecedented times. 
Deadlines are also a necessary part of the election 
process, particularly the primary election, which must be 
completed in a timely fashion to set the stage for the general 
election.  See Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 Mass. at 41.  
The question then becomes whether the particular deadline 
selected nonetheless constitutes a significant burden on the 
exercise of the constitutional right.  In making this 
determination, we look to the statutory scheme as a whole.  As 
discussed supra, there are a number of State and Federal 
statutory election deadlines that follow the September 1 primary 
election and other preparations that must be undertaken to 
effectuate the general election that takes place shortly after 
it.  Most notably, by Federal law, general election ballots must 
be distributed to military and overseas voters by local election 
officials by September 19.  See 52 U.S.C. § 20302(a)(8)(A).  See 
also St. 2019, c. 142, § 91.  To comply with this deadline, the 
Secretary must complete the general election ballots and provide 
18 
 
 
them to local election officials by September 16.  For the 
upcoming general election, this involves preparing and printing 
the more than 500 unique ballot styles necessitated by all of 
the different electoral districts and jurisdictions within the 
Commonwealth.  Before that can happen, however, local election 
officials must certify primary election results, which will not 
occur for this primary election until September 5.  See G. L. 
c. 53, § 52.  In the meantime, recounts may be demanded by 
September 4, but not resolved until as late as September 12.  
St. 2019, c. 142, § 88.  There is also the possibility for 
objections to nominations, which may be heard and adjudicated by 
the State Ballot Law Commission as late as September 14.  See 
St. 2019, c. 142, § 90.  In effect, therefore, the Legislature 
had to consider and balance dueling voting rights when it came 
to setting a deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots for the 
September 1 primary election, so as not to disenfranchise voters 
during the primary election but also not to disenfranchise 
voters in the general election that follows. 
Based on the aforementioned circumstances and their 
particular relevance to this primary election, we conclude that 
the September 1 deadline established under the act for the 
receipt of mail-in and all other ballots does not significantly 
interfere with the fundamental right to vote under the 
Massachusetts Constitution so as to require the application of 
19 
 
 
strict scrutiny.  Therefore, we apply the rational basis test to 
determine its reasonableness. 
3.  Rational basis review of the September 1 deadline.  "As 
a matter of due process, rational basis analysis requires that 
statutes bear a real and substantial relation to the public 
health, safety, morals, or some other phase of the general 
welfare" (quotation and citation omitted).  Chelsea 
Collaborative, Inc., 480 Mass. at 40.  Additionally, "[a]s a 
matter of equal protection, the rational basis test includes a 
requirement that an impartial lawmaker could logically believe 
that the classification would serve a legitimate public purpose 
that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged 
class" (quotation and citation omitted).  Id.  In making this 
assessment, we operate from the "strong presumption that the 
Legislature does not act arbitrarily."  Id. at 45.  On the 
record before us, it is apparent that it did not. 
As discussed at length supra, the September 1 deadline for 
the counting of ballots is reasonable in light of the numerous 
State and Federal statutory election deadlines that follow the 
September 1 primary election and the other matters that must be 
addressed to effectuate the general election that follows.  In 
the Legislature's estimation, the existence of these deadlines 
and other matters, which either must or may need to be satisfied 
to allow the general election that follows to proceed, made it 
20 
 
 
unfeasible to provide for the post-election day receipt of mail-
in ballots in connection with the September 1 primary election. 
In this regard, the present case resembles the Chelsea 
Collaborative case.  There, the court considered a similar 
constitutional challenge to a statute that required individuals 
to register to vote no later than twenty days before the 
election.  See Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 Mass. at 28.  In 
so doing, the court weighed the fundamental right to vote 
against the various other responsibilities that government 
officials had to attend to between the deadline and the date of 
the election: 
"Local election officials are responsible for processing 
voter registration applications, screening them for errors, 
and confirming voter qualifications.  During the time 
immediately preceding an election, elections officials have 
a variety of tasks in addition to processing these forms.  
For example, these administrators must recruit and train 
poll workers, test elections-related machines, and print 
voter lists prior to the commencement of election day 
voting." 
 
Id. at 41.  In light of this, the court found that there was 
"ample evidence" that it would be rational for the Legislature 
to conclude that a deadline was necessary prior to election day 
to achieve the "legitimate public purposes"  of "conducting 
orderly and legitimate elections."  Id. at 40-41.  The court 
then went on to conclude that, "at least for the time being, an 
impartial lawmaker could logically believe that the voter 
21 
 
 
registration deadline imposed twenty days prior to election day 
still serves legitimate public purposes that transcend the harm 
to those who may not vote."  Id. at 46. 
 
For their part, the plaintiffs in the present case suggest 
that the potential that some of the aforementioned events and 
deadlines will even occur or become relevant following the 
September 1 election is speculative and, based on past history, 
unlikely or at least manageable.  They also suggest that the 
Secretary could have sought an exemption from the forty-five day 
military and overseas voter deadline, as permitted by law under 
certain circumstances.  The Legislature and the Secretary must, 
however, prepare and provide time for recounts and contested 
nominations.  They do not have the luxury of counting on them 
not to occur.  A request for exemption from the Federal 
deadline, meanwhile, may or may not be granted.  In crafting the 
act, the Legislature chose not to leave this to chance or 
conjecture, which certainly is not an irrational choice. 
 
In considering the reasonableness of the September 1 
deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots, we are also mindful 
that with the dramatic expansion of voting by mail introduced 
under the act comes the potential for more complicated issues if 
there is a challenge to those ballots.  Thus, the fact that 
challenges may have been resolved in the past in a certain 
number of days does not mean they will be resolved as quickly in 
22 
 
 
this new mail-in ballot world.  We are also mindful, as the 
Legislature no doubt was, that any challenge will be playing out 
in the midst of a pandemic. 
 
For all these reasons, we conclude that the Legislature 
acted rationally when it concluded that a September 1 deadline 
for the receipt of mail-in ballots in the primary election was 
necessary to achieve the legitimate public purposes of 
conducting orderly primary and general elections during this 
particular election cycle.14 
 
Conclusion.  For the reasons discussed, we conclude that 
the September 1 deadline for receipt of mail-in primary election 
ballots is not unconstitutional. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
                                                          
 
14 While we have concluded that the statutory September 1 
deadline only needs to satisfy the rational basis standard, it 
also likely would satisfy a strict scrutiny analysis, see 
Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., 480 Mass. at 35 (to satisfy strict 
scrutiny, regulation "must be narrowly tailored and advance a 
compelling state interest"), as well as the intermediate level 
of scrutiny -- "less exacting than strict scrutiny but more 
searching than mere rational basis review" -- advocated by the 
concurrence in the Chelsea Collaborative decision.  See id. at 
53 (Gants, C.J., concurring) (which "would consider whether the 
Commonwealth's asserted interests in imposing the restriction 
are legitimate, whether the restriction in fact serves those 
interests, and whether the restriction is 'precisely drawn' to 
do so, weighing each of these factors in order to ascertain 
whether the burden on voting rights is justified").