The article presents several factual claims that are generally accurate but require verification for complete confidence. For instance, the claim that Washington State has been counting late mail ballots since 1917 is significant and aligns with historical practices, but the exact number of ballots counted in recent elections, such as the cited 250,000 in the last presidential election, needs verification. The article accurately notes that 18 states and additional territories count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, which is supported by election law data. However, the claim regarding President Trump's executive order prohibiting this practice should be cross-verified with the specific language of the order. The article mentions lawsuits filed against this order, which is consistent with ongoing legal challenges reported by credible sources. Overall, while the article is mostly accurate, it relies on some claims that require further corroboration.

The article attempts to present multiple perspectives on the issue of counting mail ballots after Election Day. It includes viewpoints from election officials in Washington, such as Stuart Holmes, and those who oppose the practice, like President Trump and some Republicans. However, the balance is somewhat tilted towards the perspective that eliminating the grace period would disenfranchise voters, as extensively discussed by Barbara Smith Warner. While the article does mention Republican concerns about election security, it notes that these claims lack evidence, which might suggest a slight bias towards maintaining current mail ballot practices. A more balanced approach would involve providing more detailed arguments from both sides, particularly from those supporting Trump's executive order.

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to explain the issue of counting mail ballots received after Election Day. It logically presents the historical context, current practices, and potential changes due to the executive order. The inclusion of quotes from key stakeholders adds clarity and depth to the narrative. However, the article could improve by providing clearer distinctions between verified facts and claims that require further evidence, which would help readers understand the nuances of the debate more effectively. Overall, the article is accessible and informative, with a tone that maintains neutrality.

The article cites credible sources, including Stuart Holmes from Washington's Secretary of State's Office and Barbara Smith Warner from the National Vote at Home Institute. It also references data from the National Conference of State Legislatures and mentions NPR as a reporting source. These are reputable organizations and individuals with authority on election practices. However, it lacks direct quotations or detailed data from the Trump administration or Republican officials, which would enhance the credibility and depth of the opposing viewpoint. Including such sources would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the motivations behind the executive order.

The article provides some context about the historical and legal background of mail-in voting practices, which helps readers understand the issue's complexity. However, it does not thoroughly explain the methodology or sources behind some of its claims, such as the exact number of ballots affected by the executive order or the specific legal challenges mentioned. While it cites organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures, it does not provide direct links or detailed references to the data or studies supporting its claims. Greater transparency in the sourcing and explanation of these figures would enhance the article's credibility.