SCOTUS will consider whether Illinois congressman has standing to challenge ballot-counting law
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 4, 2024. (Photo by Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via the Associated Press)
A downstate Illinois congressman who wants to challenge a state law on the counting of mail-in ballots will have his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois and two Republican electors have standing to challenge the law. The statute allows the counting of absentee ballots received up to 14 days after an election; if the ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day; or if they are signed, dated and certified in the same time frame.
Illinois is one of 18 states that allow the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, Politico reports, citing information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan public officials’ association.
Bost and the two electors claim that the law dilutes the value of lawfully cast votes, infringing the right to vote and their right to run for office under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment. They also claim a violation of their statutory rights.
In addition to Politico, publications covering the cert grant include Bloomberg Law, SCOTUSblog, Law360 and the Chicago Tribune.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago affirmed dismissal of the case, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to plead an adequate injury in fact that would give them standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution.
The issue of candidate standing flared in the “hothouse atmosphere surrounding the 2020 federal elections,” according to the cert petition filed for Bost and the electors. Many of the cases took an unjustifiably strict view of standing, part of a recent trend, the cert petition says. The 7th Circuit decision is part of the trend, according to the plaintiffs.
“The ability of candidates and parties to sue over state laws affecting their campaigns has been narrowed again and, indeed, may never have been so restricted,” the petition says.
Bost and the electors argued that the policy caused monetary harm because they were forced to use resources to contest ballots arriving after Election Day and to monitor the late vote count.
But the 7th Circuit said there was no impending injury. Bost, for example, won his last election with 75% of the vote, the 7th Circuit said.
“And plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks” as an election defeat, the appeals court said.
The cert petition claims that the 7th Circuit’s decision “is infected with a number of errors,” and the Supreme Court’s guidance “is urgently needed.”
The case is Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.
Bost is represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
