Supreme Court Says Candidates Have Standing to Challenge Mail-Ballot Grace-Period Laws Before Elections
In a 7–2 decision the Supreme Court held that candidates have a “concrete and particularized” interest to sue over vote‑counting rules before proving they were harmed, reviving Rep. Mike Bost’s challenge to an Illinois law that counts ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within two weeks — a practice used in more than a dozen states and D.C. — and signaling the Court will take up this broader question this spring; the ruling drew a concurrence from Justice Amy Coney Barrett (joined by Elena Kagan) and a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (joined by Sonia Sotomayor) and provoked mixed reactions from legal scholars and advocacy groups, with the Trump administration backing Bost.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that candidates have standing to challenge vote-counting rules before elections, reviving Rep. Mike Bost’s challenge to an Illinois law.
- The Court said candidates have a “concrete and particularized” interest in vote‑counting rules and may sue without showing those rules harmed their electoral prospects or increased campaign costs.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurrence joined by Justice Elena Kagan; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
- The Court will take up this spring the broader question of whether states may continue counting mail ballots received after Election Day but postmarked by Election Day; the Trump administration filed in support of Bost.
- Illinois’ statute at issue allows counting ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within two weeks, and more than a dozen states plus D.C. have similar post‑Election‑Day receipt rules.
- The ruling found Bost had standing even though late-arriving ballots likely did not affect his lopsided win, i.e., standing was allowed despite lack of likely personal harm.
- Election‑law observers were split: the conservative group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections called the decision a “major win” for resolving election‑law questions on the merits, while the Brennan Center warned it could “open the floodgates” to frivolous pre‑election suits.
- NYU’s Richard Pildes said the decision should help resolve the legality of election rules before voting and counting, potentially reducing post‑election chaos.
📊 Relevant Data
In the 2020 general election, 560,177 mail-in ballots were rejected nationally, representing 0.8% of returned ballots.
Election results, 2020: Analysis of rejected ballots — Ballotpedia
In the 2020 election, non-matching signature was the most common reason for mail ballot rejection, accounting for 32.8% of rejections nationally.
Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report — U.S. Election Assistance Commission
In Texas's March 2022 primary election, Asian voters had a mail ballot rejection rate of 19%, Black voters 16.6%, Latino voters 16.1%, compared to 12% for White voters.
Voters of color had mail ballots rejected at higher rates in Texas’s March primary, study finds — VoteBeat
In the 2020 election, lateness accounted for 43.5% of UOCAVA mail ballot rejections nationally.
Election Administration and Voting Survey 2020 Comprehensive Report — U.S. Election Assistance Commission
📰 Source Timeline (4)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- PBS frames the Supreme Court action as reviving a Republican congressman’s challenge to an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, consistent with the standing ruling already tracked.
- No significant new legal or factual detail beyond that high-level description is provided.
- The Court framed the holding broadly: candidates have a 'concrete and particularized' interest in vote-counting rules and may challenge them even without showing those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase campaign costs.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurrence joined by Justice Elena Kagan, underscoring some cross‑ideological agreement on the standing question.
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argues the ruling lets candidates sue in advance of provable harm and gives them broader access to court than ordinary voters.
- Election-law scholars and advocacy groups split on the implications: the conservative Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections praised the decision as a 'major win' for getting election-law questions heard on the merits, while Brennan Center’s Wendy Weiser warned it could 'open the floodgates' to frivolous pre‑election suits.
- NYU’s Richard Pildes notes that the decision should help get legality of election rules resolved before voting and counting, reducing post‑election chaos.
- Confirms the Supreme Court’s vote count as 7–2 and that the Court held Rep. Mike Bost has standing even though late-arriving ballots likely did not affect his lopsided win.
- Spells out that Illinois’ statute permits counting ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within two weeks, and notes that more than a dozen states plus D.C. have similar post-Election Day receipt rules.
- Reports that the Court will take up the broader question this spring of whether states may continue counting such late-arriving mail ballots and that the Trump administration weighed in to support Bost.