Supreme Court Considers Election Law Challenges
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seems ready to approve various challenges from political candidates regarding election laws, a decision that could significantly shape the presidential election in 2028.
Many justices indicated support for Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), who is pushing for a lawsuit against an Illinois law that permits mail-in ballots postmarked before Election Day to be counted for up to two weeks after polls close.
Bost’s challenge was dismissed by lower courts, including the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which ruled that he lacked standing because his claims were deemed speculative without showing any real harm.
“What you’re presenting is a potential disaster,” Chief Justice John Roberts remarked to an attorney from Illinois, questioning whether a candidate with a strong chance of winning could contest election laws they consider unjust.
Roberts noted the paradoxical scenario: “If a candidate is projected to win by a significant margin, there’s no standing. But if a candidate’s chances are thinner, then they have a position to argue.” However, predictions like that might only become apparent close to the election.
Illinois Attorney General Jane Knotts cautioned that loosening candidate requirements could disrupt the electoral process.
She warned that making it too easy to challenge election rules could confuse officials and lead to numerous disputes. “Self-declared candidates could question any rules they dislike, even if those rules are quite benign,” she claimed. Knotts emphasized that this could divert election officials from their primary roles, forcing them into litigation rather than focusing on conducting the elections.
Bost, who is aiming for a seventh term next year, has consistently won by margins of at least six points, most recently securing 74.2% of the vote in 2024.
As of now, around 17 states, including Washington, D.C., allow mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted for a limited period following the closure of polls.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared to divide mainly along ideological lines. However, liberal Justice Elena Kagan expressed that Bost could argue that the Illinois law “harms someone more than previously.” She pointed out that while the complaint might seem fabricated, Bost could easily shape a complaint that aligns with judicial expectations.
If the court rules in Bost’s favor, it could lead to an easier path for candidates to dispute state election laws on various fronts.
Following the 2020 election, allies of former President Trump lodged numerous lawsuits questioning rules like the delay in counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. Most were dismissed due to lack of standing.
It’s tough to prove damages when a lawsuit is filed prior to an election because no votes have been cast yet.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concerns about the complications that might arise from allowing easier challenges to voting rules. He expressed worry about the chaos that could come from post-election litigation, particularly regarding challenges to vote-counting regulations.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that any relief sought should be based on actual needs. She argued that candidates unlikely to win should not be able to alter election rules, calling such scenarios “absurd.”
Justices have shown discomfort with the idea of courts trying to predict election outcomes, with Justice Neil Gorsuch stating that it seems inappropriate for federal courts to gauge a candidate’s likelihood of winning just before an election, which could inadvertently influence the results.
Kavanaugh added, “Candidates who believe they are invulnerable often end up losing.”
