type: timeline_event
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections that political candidates have standing to challenge election rules governing how votes are counted in their elections, regardless of whether those rules actually harm their electoral prospects. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, with Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissenting.
The case arose from Republican Representative Michael Bost's challenge to an Illinois law allowing mail ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day to be counted. Bost argued the extended deadline violated federal law requiring elections be held on a single day. The lower courts had dismissed for lack of standing, finding Bost couldn't show the law injured him.
The majority held that candidates have a cognizable interest in the rules governing their elections sufficient to establish Article III standing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurrence joined by Justice Elena Kagan noting concerns about the breadth of the ruling.
The dissent warned the decision opened the door to widespread litigation challenging election administration. Justice Jackson wrote that allowing candidates to sue over any rule they dislike, without showing actual injury, would flood courts with political disputes. The ruling made it significantly easier for candidates to bring federal lawsuits challenging state election procedures, potentially destabilizing election administration nationwide.