Supreme Court’s Ruling on Mail-in Ballots
The Supreme Court decided on Wednesday that federal candidates have the right to contest state laws permitting the counting of mail-in ballots after Election Day.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices supported a Republican congressman who questioned Illinois’ policy allowing mail-in ballots to be counted for up to two weeks post-Election Day, provided they were postmarked before the deadline.
Lower courts had previously ruled against Representative Michael Bost, stating he did not have standing—meaning he lacked sufficient legal injury—to file a lawsuit. He was joined in his challenge by two presidential electors aiming to contest the state law.
The justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., asserted that an “unlawful election rule” could indeed harm a candidate, resulting in legal injuries.
“Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have a ‘personal stake’ in a case to have standing to sue,” Chief Justice Roberts noted. “Congressman Bost has an obvious answer: He is a candidate for office. And a candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.”
The majority opinion was supported by other GOP appointees as well as Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that Mr. Bost faced potential harm rather than actual harm—indicating that precedent requires individuals to demonstrate actual injury to pursue legal action.
“Congressman Bost has failed to allege that the election-related law he seeks to challenge has caused him to suffer any injury that satisfies those requirements,” wrote Justice Jackson.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also aligned with Justice Jackson’s dissenting view.
Bipartisan states have enacted significant changes in voting regulations over recent years, leading to numerous lawsuits in federal courts. The ruling in Boston v. Illinois State Board of Elections signifies that candidates will find it easier to legally challenge these alterations.
