Supreme Court to Hear Bost v. Illinois Election Commission
This week, the Supreme Court will review the case of Bost v. Illinois Election Commission, which focuses on court access.
It seems like courts have been more welcoming to left-leaning groups filing questionable lawsuits related to the Election Justice Act, while conservatives have struggled to have their voices heard. There’s a chance this case might change that.
Michael Bost, a Representative from Illinois, is at the center of this. He challenged a state law that permits mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to 14 days post-election. Bost claims this violates federal law because election day is strictly defined as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Unfortunately, the lower court sidestepped actually addressing the core issue. They ruled that Bost lacked standing—essentially stating he wasn’t harmed by the law, which meant he was blocked from making his case.
Interestingly, a significant majority of the public, about 89%, views extended mail-in voting as problematic. When ballots trickle in over two weeks, it can undermine trust in the electoral process. People begin to lose confidence when they see daily vote counts fluctuate, especially when there’s a delay in declaring a winner.
Long voting periods like this shouldn’t be acceptable anymore. The Fifth Circuit has pointed out that accepting mail-in ballots past election day breaches federal law, and even a Presidential order has focused on rectifying these time frames in federal elections.
In contrast, the Seventh Circuit barred Bost from legal recourse, asserting he didn’t demonstrate sufficient injury from the Illinois law.
However, one could argue that there are numerous ways this law affects him. For instance, it increases financial burdens on candidates. Instead of just needing legal help for Election Night, Bost now has to cover two extra weeks of monitoring ballot counting. This requirement naturally drives up campaign costs due to the extended effort to secure votes, which Illinois law imposes on candidates. But yet, the Seventh Circuit simply said no.
This decision starkly contrasts with the Fifth Circuit’s stance, which allowed the Republican National Committee to contest similar regulations in Mississippi. Given these precedents, candidates like Bost should ideally have the same stakes in election administration.
It’s peculiar how the left seems to favor the Seventh Circuit. Despite seeming contradictory, they often challenge election laws, but the reasons are mostly tied to the nature of their filings. Their lawsuits usually stem from theories that some might consider unconventional. They’ll rally for various groups, arguing that basic requirements like ID and voter registration are forms of oppression.
Their legal actions typically invoke laws like the Voting Rights Act or the First Amendment to defend their access to the courts.
On the flip side, conservative lawsuits face a vastly different landscape, with the left often resisting their attempts at legal recourse. To many on the left, discrimination is the only significant harm. If their own election laws go unchallenged in court, that may actually be preferable for them. Historically, conservatives have faced more challenges in the legal arena, and decisions like Bost’s could perpetuate this trend.
The Supreme Court needs to acknowledge the real damages stemming from extended mail-in voting deadlines and validate Bost’s position in challenging Illinois’s laws. The financial strain on candidates, prolonged uncertainty over election results, and decreasing public confidence are tangible issues that affect the integrity of the electoral process.
If political parties can contest such laws, then candidates should, too. The refusal of the Seventh Circuit to recognize this harm poses a troubling precedent, potentially shielding flawed election policies from scrutiny. Upholding Bost’s case could restore balance and affirm that election laws should prioritize voters and candidates over political agendas.
