By Joshua Church, 2026 Candidate for Lieutenant Governor with Dave Bronson
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision that cuts to the core of election integrity in this country. At issue is something most Americans would consider basic: should ballots be counted after Election Day?
For most of our history, the answer was clear. Election Day meant one day. Voters made their decisions based on the same information, cast their ballots, and by the end of the night, or shortly after, the country knew the result.
That clarity is gone.
Over time, our election system has been stretched and reshaped. Voting now happens over weeks or even months. Some people vote long before debates, disclosures, or late-breaking facts. Others vote after Election Day has passed. The result is a system that feels less like a shared civic moment and more like a prolonged process with moving goalposts.
The case before the Court focuses on late-arriving mail ballots, but the issue is bigger than one rule. It is about whether we return to a system that is simple, understandable, and trusted.
Confidence matters.
When elections drag on for days or weeks, when rules differ widely, and when outcomes shift after election night, trust erodes. Even if every ballot is lawful, prolonged uncertainty damages confidence in the result.
That is a problem we cannot afford.
A strong election system should rest on a few clear principles:
- Every eligible citizen can vote, and no one else
- Every legal vote is counted accurately
- The rules are consistent and enforced
- The outcome is known promptly
Right now, too many Americans question whether those standards are being met.
There are real, practical steps that can restore confidence and strengthen our elections:
- Same-day, in-person voting as the standard
- Photo ID requirements to verify voter identity
- Limiting mail-in voting to true absentee ballots with strong verification
- Clear chain-of-custody rules for every ballot
- Full transparency with observers, audits, and outside oversight
- Strong election watcher access at every stage
- Regular maintenance and cleanup of voter rolls
- Paper ballots with hand-counted or verifiable audit systems
These are not extreme ideas. They are common-sense safeguards used in many places that run secure and trusted elections.
Other modern democracies run elections that are both accessible and decisive. They vote, they count, and they report results quickly. There is no reason the United States cannot meet that same standard.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to reinforce a simple idea: “Election Day” should have meaning.
If the Court sets a clear expectation that ballots must be received by the close of polls, it would send a signal to states and legislatures to bring their systems back into alignment with common sense and public confidence.
But courts alone cannot fix this.
State leaders, including our lieutenant governor who oversees elections, must take this responsibility seriously. Election systems should be transparent, efficient, and secure. They should be easy to understand and hard to question.
Every eligible voter deserves to know their vote counts.
And just as important, every voter deserves to know their vote is not diluted by error, mismanagement, or abuse.
As a veteran, I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That oath did not end with my service. The right to vote is one of its most fundamental protections.
The men and women who have fought to defend this country did not do so for a system people question. They did it for one the people trust.
It is time to restore that trust.
It is time to make Election Day mean Election Day again.
Josh Church is a Fairbanks resident, a financial adviser rep, and a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, running alongside Candidate for Governor Dave Bronson.
This op-ed was voluntarily submitted by Joshua Church and not solicited by Must Read Alaska. All candidates running for elected office are welcome and encouraged to submit articles for publication. Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative candidate to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular candidate.
