The Supreme Court is about to tackle a highly significant and controversial issue: whether to reinstate a lawsuit challenging Illinois' law that permits counting mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. This case isn’t just about one state's mail-in ballot rules—it touches on the fundamental question of who actually has the legal authority to sue over election laws. And this is the part most people miss: the court’s decision could trigger a wave of new lawsuits challenging election procedures nationwide.
In 2022, Republican Representative Michael Bost and two presidential electors launched a legal challenge against Illinois’ mail-in voting system. They argued that counting ballots beyond Election Day unlawfully extends the voting period beyond what federal law allows. However, two lower courts dismissed the case, concluding that Bost didn’t have the "standing"—the legal right—to sue because he couldn’t prove that the policy directly harmed him. Yet, the Supreme Court saw enough merit in the case to agree to hear it earlier this year, signaling how critical and potentially far-reaching this issue is.
What makes this even more charged is the political backdrop. Former President Donald Trump and his supporters have been vocal critics of mail-in voting, using it to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. Trump even promised to lead efforts to eliminate mail-in voting—despite the fact that his own campaign once encouraged it as a voting method. "It's time Republicans get tough and stop it," Trump declared, claiming Democrats rely on mail-in ballots because it’s "the only way they can get elected."
Interestingly, when Bost’s lawsuit was dismissed in district court back in 2022, the ruling didn’t address whether counting late mail ballots was right or wrong on its merits. Instead, the judge focused solely on whether Bost and the electors had a concrete legal reason to bring the suit. The court determined their argument—that continuing to count ballots after Election Day forced Bost to expend campaign resources—was a "generalized grievance," a vague claim that doesn’t grant legal standing.
So, what does it take for someone to have standing in federal court? Essentially, the plaintiff must show they were personally harmed by the action in question, that the harm was caused by the defendant, and that the court’s intervention would fix the problem.
Bost, alongside electors Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, insists the mail-in ballot policy not only jeopardizes his chances of winning but also inflicts what they call a "pocketbook injury." They argue that candidates must keep paying staff and managing campaigns during the extended ballot-counting period, which adds financial and logistical burdens. Their legal team stressed, "Candidates have the most at stake in elections. They pause their lives and invest unparalleled time and millions of dollars into campaigning. When it’s over, months of effort and money are either validated by victory or lost forever."
But Illinois officials push back hard. They claim that Bost’s fear of losing due to mail-in ballots is purely speculative. Moreover, they argue candidates aren’t compelled to keep their campaigns running post-Election Day, making the supposed harm Bost cites voluntary rather than imposed. The state also warns that if courts start allowing lawsuits like Bost’s, it could open the floodgates to endless legal battles challenging election laws for ideological reasons. This could distract local officials and waste resources better spent on running elections smoothly.
The Trump administration has weighed in on the side of Bost regarding who has the right to sue about election rules, although the Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, cautioned against giving candidates overly broad rights to file election-related lawsuits. In an amicus brief, Sauer proposed a middle ground: "The Court can establish a clear rule that candidates have standing to seek future judicial relief against rules governing ballot validity when there is a realistic risk that the ballots could influence the election outcome."
This case is not just a legal battle; it’s a clash over how democratic processes are governed and who gets to protect electoral integrity through the courts. But here’s where it gets controversial: should candidates have special privileges to sue over election rules simply because they are candidates? Or does allowing this open the door to political weaponization of the courts? What do you think — is this a necessary safeguard or a dangerous precedent? Sound off in the comments below!
