The US Supreme Court heard arguments today about whether Congressman Mike Bost can bring a lawsuit challenging Illinois' mail-in voting laws.
In May of 2022 Congressman Mike Bost filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois' mail-in voting laws, "But the one thing that is clear in the Constitution is that the 2nd Tuesday after the first Monday is always in November of every even year is election day."
He argues that the state allows the counting of mail-in ballots without proper postmarks up to 14 days after the election.
In July 2023, a federal court in the Northern district of Illinois ruled that Bost did not have standing - meaning he had not proved to the court that the law affected him directly. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling tossing out Bost's lawsuit. He appealed to the Supreme Court and they granted the hearing to hear his appeal.
Wednesday's arguments focused solely on Mr. Bost's standing. They did not discuss the merits on Illinois' mail in ballot law. That would only be heard if the lower courts decisions were overturned.
Bost's main contention is that in addition to changes to final election outcomes, his campaign doesn't stop on election night if the state keeps counting ballots, "And I do have standing because it costs me money to have either attorneys or staff and everybody around to make sure counting of votes are done legally and correctly."
During today's hearing the justices focused on this reasoning trying to determine if the this input by Bost was enough be able to say he did indeed have standing.
Paul Clement is Bost's attorney and argued that current system of courts making decisions after elections will cause confusion, "There is a better way, and it simply requires acknowledging that candidates have a unique, concrete, and particularized interest in the rules of the electoral road, especially those that address which ballots are going to be counted and when."
Jane Notz argued the case for the state of Illinois. She said giving Representative Bost standing would create chaos in future elections and open up the election process to more lawsuits, "Any self-declared candidate could challenge any election rule that they happen to have a policy disagreement with, even if that rule were entirely harmless."
Notz says this would create more work for election officials when they should be working on ensuring smooth elections.
The justices will now consider the arguments and briefs have been filed. The court will release their opinoin by the end of the term in June of 2026.
