Summary
The Supreme Court held that Congressman Michael Bost has Article III standing to challenge Illinois rules allowing certain mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. The Court concluded that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules governing the counting of votes and the integrity of the electoral process, without needing to show a substantial risk of losing the election. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a candidate for office has Article III standing to challenge rules governing the counting of votes in the candidate's election without showing a substantial risk of losing the election, failing to achieve a legally significant vote threshold, or suffering a separate financial or reputational injury.
- Whether Congressman Bost adequately alleged a concrete and particularized interest in the integrity and legality of the election process.
Holdings
- A candidate for office has a concrete and particularized Article III interest in the rules governing the counting of votes in the candidate's election and may challenge those rules without showing a substantial risk that the rules will cause an election loss, reduce the candidate's vote share, or increase campaign costs.
- Article III does not require a candidate challenging vote-counting rules to plead or prove a substantial risk of electoral loss, failure to meet a legally significant vote threshold, or a likely disadvantage relative to a competitor.
Key quotations
“Win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law.” (at 4)
“Candidates, in short, are not “mere bystanders” in their own elections.” (at 6)
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns.” (at 9–10)
Factual background
Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day if received within two weeks after election day. Congressman Michael Bost and presidential-elector nominees Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney alleged that counting such ballots conflicted with federal statutes designating election day. Bost alleged that late ballot counting would require his campaign to continue organizing and monitoring the election for fourteen additional days, incurring costs and potentially affecting his vote margin, reputation, and electoral legitimacy.
Procedural history
In May 2022, Bost, Pollastrini, and Sweeney sued the Illinois State Board of Elections and its executive director, principally arguing that Illinois's post-election ballot-receipt rule conflicted with 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1. The Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the alleged monitoring costs, competitive injury, and inaccurate-tally injury were insufficiently concrete or speculative. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's holding that Congressman Bost has Article III standing.