The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday revived a lawsuit brought by Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) challenging Illinois’ mail-in ballot rules, a decision that could make it easier for political candidates to bring legal challenges to election laws in their home states.
[read more]
In a 7-2 ruling, the justices held that Bost has legal standing to sue over Illinois’ practice of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by that date. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by five conservative justices and Justice Elena Kagan. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
“Candidates, in short, are not ‘mere bystanders’ in their own elections,” Roberts wrote, explaining that those running for office have a direct and personal stake in how votes are counted and how election results are determined. The court stressed that it was not ruling on whether Illinois’ policy is lawful, only that Bost is entitled to challenge it in court.
Lower courts had previously dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the late-arriving ballots were unlikely to affect Bost’s own election outcomes. By reversing those rulings, the Supreme Court signaled that candidates may bring challenges even without proving a close or outcome-determinative race.
Illinois officials warned that siding with Bost could create instability for election administration, noting that more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia allow ballots to be counted after Election Day if postmarked on time. In dissent, Justice Jackson accused the majority of weakening standing requirements and inviting excessive election-related litigation, a view Sotomayor joined.
Roberts rejected those concerns, arguing there is little reason to expect frivolous lawsuits and emphasizing that the ruling is narrowly limited to candidates contesting vote-counting rules in their own elections. Bost, who represents southern Illinois and chairs the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, brought the suit with backing from the Trump administration and the conservative group Judicial Watch, as part of a broader push to tighten election-day deadlines nationwide.[/read]