>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Bost originally filed the lawsuit in 2022, arguing that Illinois’ absentee ballot policy conflicts with federal law, which establishes a single, uniform Election Day for federal elections. His argument centers on the claim that allowing ballots to arrive and be counted weeks after Election Day undermines the clarity and finality intended by federal statutes.
Despite the law having been on the books since 2005, the issue has taken on renewed importance amid heightened public scrutiny of mail-in voting practices nationwide. The surge in absentee voting during recent election cycles has fueled concerns among conservatives about delayed results, lack of transparency, and public confidence in the outcome of elections.
Importantly, Bost did not allege voter fraud in his filings. However, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting systems, particularly those that allow late-arriving ballots to be counted well after Election Day.
The Supreme Court’s decision immediately drew sharp criticism from the left. Two liberal justices dissented, warning that the ruling could unleash a wave of lawsuits challenging election laws across the country. CNN echoed those concerns, suggesting the decision could complicate future elections.
Steve Vladeck, CNN’s Supreme Court analyst and a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, sounded the alarm over what he described as potential legal chaos.
“Today’s ruling could open the door to a lot of litigation—and potential chaos – on the far side of the next contested election,” Vladeck said.
“If candidates will generally have standing to challenge how votes are counted in any election they’re running in, that could dramatically expand the horizon of legal challenges that can be brought challenging even those elections that were completely by the book,” Vladeck said, “potentially injecting more uncertainty in those critical days and weeks after Election Day going forward.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued a strongly worded dissent, arguing that the Court’s decision creates a special legal category for candidates that could destabilize election administration nationwide.
“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing ‘to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes,’ simply and solely because they are ‘candidates’ for office — the court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral processes,” Jackson wrote.
Illinois officials had urged the Court to block the lawsuit, warning that allowing such challenges could burden election administrators and disrupt established procedures. They also argued that candidates should be required to demonstrate a heightened risk of electoral loss before being allowed to sue.
That argument failed to persuade the Court. During oral arguments in October, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that Bost’s financial and campaign-related expenses tied to the law were sufficient to establish standing—a traditional and widely accepted basis in federal court.
Chief Justice Roberts went even further, criticizing Illinois’ position as unworkable. He reportedly described the state’s proposed standard as a “potential disaster” that would force judges into the role of political analysts, attempting to predict election outcomes before votes are cast.
Supporters of the ruling argue that the Constitution and federal law are clear: the United States has an Election Day, not a prolonged election season that stretches on for weeks. They say the decision reinforces accountability and restores a critical check on election rules that continue to evolve with minimal judicial oversight.
As the case returns to lower courts, its ultimate outcome remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the Supreme Court has sent a powerful message: candidates have the right to question election rules—and the courts have a duty to hear them.
