Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
Decision
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Opinion of the Court
The Facts
Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day. Congressman Michael Bost, along with presidential elector nominees Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, arguing that counting ballots received after election day violates federal law.
The Issue
Whether a candidate for federal office has Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations governing vote counting in their election.
The Board argued Bost lacked standing because he could not show a concrete injury from the ballot-counting rules. Bost argued that a candidate whose election outcome is affected by the counting rules has a direct stake in the legality of those rules.
The Rules
A plaintiff must demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability to establish standing in federal court.
States prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, subject to Congressional override.
Federal law establishes a uniform election day for congressional elections.
The Application
A candidate for federal office has a direct, personal stake in the rules that govern how votes are counted in their own election. This is not a generalized grievance shared by all citizens. Bost is not complaining about government conduct that affects everyone equally. He is challenging specific ballot-counting procedures that determine whether he wins or loses his seat. That is a concrete, particularized injury.
The Elections Clause gives states authority over election procedures, but that authority is not unlimited. Federal law sets a uniform election day. Whether Illinois can extend ballot receipt past that day is a federal question. A candidate whose election turns on the answer has standing to ask the court to resolve it.
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court held 7-2 that candidates for federal office have Article III standing to challenge laws governing vote counting in their elections.** Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Barrett, joined by Kagan, concurred in the judgment. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented.
The decision establishes that candidates are not merely generalized grievants when they challenge the rules that decide their own elections. Reversed and remanded to the Seventh Circuit.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support