The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 in a significant case concerning mail-in voting regulations. The ruling determined that Representative Michael Bost, a Republican from Illinois, possesses the legal standing necessary to challenge a specific Illinois election law. This law permits mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for up to two weeks after that date. This decision could profoundly impact how voting rules are litigated in upcoming elections.
Understanding the Case
It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not address whether Illinois’ deadline for ballot receipt is lawful. Instead, the ruling reinstated Bost’s lawsuit and directed it back to lower courts for further examination. Under Illinois law, election officials are required to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received within a two-week window after that day.
Representative Bost, along with two fellow candidates, filed a lawsuit in 2022. They argued that counting ballots after Election Day contradicts federal statutes that establish a uniform date for federal elections. Earlier lower court rulings dismissed the lawsuit based on standing grounds. Courts concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a sufficiently direct injury. For instance, the Seventh Circuit noted Bost’s previous electoral performance and classified costs incurred from monitoring late-arriving ballots as voluntary actions taken to prevent a hypothetical harm.
Majority Opinion Insights
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, dismissed this perspective. He asserted that candidates have a personal interest in the rules governing vote counting in their elections. The opinion articulated that an unlawful election rule can harm candidates in various ways and acknowledged an added interest in ensuring “a fair process,” separate from outcomes.
According to the court, candidates are distinctively impacted when the rules for counting votes differ from statutory requirements. The integrity of the electoral process is closely linked to the legitimacy of the eventual winner. The opinion also highlighted the practical implications of allowing disputes to surface just before Election Day, emphasizing that last-minute legal interventions might lead to voter confusion and undermine the electoral process.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred with the judgment, alongside Justice Elena Kagan. However, Barrett suggested that the case should be resolved using a conventional standing theory. She contended that Bost had standing due to alleged economic harm resulting from the additional campaign expenses related to monitoring late-arriving ballots, rather than solely by virtue of being a candidate.
Conversely, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Jackson argued that the majority’s reasoning effectively weakens the established requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete, individualized injury. She maintained that an interest in electoral fairness is broadly shared and that the court’s ruling could lead to an increase in lawsuits filed by candidates concerning election administration regulations.
Implications of the Ruling
The immediate effects of this ruling may be procedural yet significant. By lowering the threshold for entering federal court, the decision may pave the way for an increase in pre-election challenges concerning voting regulations, particularly those related to ballot counting and deadlines. This includes disputes over how long ballots may arrive post-Election Day yet still be counted.
Moreover, the ruling may encourage litigation to occur earlier in electoral cycles instead of only after closely contested races. This is because candidates can pursue lawsuits without having to prove a substantial risk of losing, fundamentally altering the landscape of election-related legal challenges.
Next Steps for Illinois
As a result of this ruling, the next phase will see the case return to the lower courts. Judges will be tasked with determining whether Illinois’s two-week receipt window aligns with federal election-day statutes governing federal elections. Regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding standing will likely be referenced in future disputes over mail voting rules, particularly as more states adopt absentee and vote-by-mail procedures that may take days to completely process.