Viral News
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday revived a legal challenge brought by Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) against an Illinois absentee ballot law, ruling that the Republican lawmaker has the legal standing necessary to pursue the case. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that Bost may challenge a state rule allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for up to two weeks afterward.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, concluding that political candidates have a direct and personal stake in how votes are counted in elections in which they are running. That interest, the Court said, exists regardless of whether a challenged rule directly affects a candidate’s chances of winning or increases campaign-related expenses.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections,” Roberts wrote. “Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.”
Bost filed the lawsuit in 2022, arguing that Illinois’ absentee ballot law conflicts with federal statutes establishing a uniform Election Day for federal offices. Lower courts dismissed the case, finding that Bost lacked standing because he had not demonstrated a sufficient personal injury.
The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, opening the door for the lawsuit to move forward.
Two liberal justices dissented, cautioning that the ruling could invite a surge of litigation challenging state election laws. Legal analysts echoed those concerns, suggesting the decision may encourage candidates nationwide to contest voting procedures, even in elections conducted without evidence of irregularities.
Illinois officials had argued that allowing such lawsuits could overwhelm election administrators and disrupt long-standing voting systems. They warned that expanding standing for candidates could interfere with the orderly administration of elections.
Bost did not allege voter fraud in his filings. While former President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting and delayed ballot counting, the Illinois law at issue has been in place since 2005.
Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst for CNN and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the ruling could significantly broaden the scope of election-related litigation.
“If candidates will generally have standing to challenge how votes are counted in any election they’re running in, that could dramatically expand the horizon of legal challenges,” Vladeck said, potentially increasing uncertainty in the days and weeks following close elections.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned that the majority’s decision could destabilize election administration by creating a special standing rule for candidates.
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs,” Jackson wrote, the Court risks complicating both standing doctrine and the nation’s electoral processes.
Supporters of the ruling argue that federal law and the Constitution clearly establish a single Election Day, not an extended election period. They also note that courts have long recognized financial and procedural burdens—often referred to as “pocketbook injuries”—as sufficient grounds for legal standing.
During oral arguments in October, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to Bost’s campaign-related expenses as evidence that the law imposed a tangible injury. Illinois officials countered that candidates should be required to show a meaningful increase in the risk of electoral defeat, an argument the Court rejected.
Chief Justice Roberts described that standard as a “potential disaster,” saying it would force courts to engage in political speculation rather than legal analysis.
