The Supreme Court indicated on Wednesday that it may allow candidates for federal office greater leeway in challenging state election laws without the need to demonstrate substantial injury to their election prospects.
This legal shift could pave the way for numerous challenges as the midterm elections approach, particularly as many Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump seek to overturn regulations that permit the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
The case at hand involves Illinois Congressman Michael Bost, whose lawsuit aims to contest a state law allowing the counting of mail-in ballots for up to 14 days post-election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day.
Bost’s lawsuit was initially dismissed by both federal district and appeals courts on the grounds that he did not have a significant enough stake in the election to justify his lawsuit.
Having achieved 75% of the vote in 2022 and 74% in 2024, Bost’s attorney, Paul Clement, noted during oral arguments that candidates are not simply passive observers in an election. According to Clement, they invest considerable resources and energy into their campaigns, which gives them a vested interest in ensuring accurate vote counts.
Clement argued that extending the election campaign by two weeks, as allowed under the current law, creates additional financial burdens for candidates who must maintain their campaign staff.
He contended that preventing Bost’s case from advancing would effectively turn federal courts into an oracle of election outcomes.
The Court’s conservative justices appeared receptive to Clement’s arguments, while some liberal justices also seemed to explore a middle ground that could accommodate the administration’s stance.
Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about Bost’s right to sue, challenging the notion of a pocketbook injury, which he described as potentially straightforward. He inquired whether a change in vote count resulting from the contested ballots could serve as sufficient grounds for bringing a lawsuit.
Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz, who defended the law, responded that a smaller margin of victory must be associated with other factors to constitute a significant injury.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern that permitting a flood of election law challenges post-election could lead to voter disenfranchisement and chaos. Kavanaugh referenced the legal challenges from the 2020 elections and questioned the practical remedies for candidates if a ruling found the law illegal after the election had taken place.
Chief Justice John Roberts echoed this concern, warning that a stricter viewpoint on candidate standing could result in a flurry of lawsuits being initiated in the political tumult just before elections, described as the most contentious period in politics.
Justice Elena Kagan appeared open to finding a balance that would allow Bost to pursue his lawsuit without setting a broad precedent that would grant standing to any candidate wishing to challenge electoral regulations.
Kagan proposed that the Court could impose a requirement for candidates to demonstrate a substantial risk that new election laws would disadvantage them electorally compared to previous rules.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed reservations about Bost’s case, highlighting that existing case law demands a concrete demonstration of substantial harm, rather than a generalized complaint about election law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised skepticism about whether a mere change in vote margins constituted a legitimate injury to a candidate. She questioned the premise that the potential need to allocate additional funds for ballot monitoring should be viewed as a necessary expense, suggesting that disappointment over vote margins should not typically qualify as harm.
A ruling in favor of Bost could not only revive his challenge regarding the counting of mail-in ballots but also expand the rights of any federal candidate to legally contest voting laws as Election Day approaches.
Matthew Shapanka, an expert in election law, emphasized that the implications of this case extend beyond standing rules. They may reshape how candidates, political entities, and voters perceive the process of challenging election regulations in the future.
Shapanka further highlighted how this case could influence judicial involvement in elections, raising questions about the appropriateness of courts intervening based on a candidate’s perceived strength or likelihood of winning.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections is anticipated by June 2026, and its outcomes will likely have significant ramifications for the electoral landscape and the standards for legal standing in election-related challenges.
image source from：abcnews
