A majority of the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to arguments by an Illinois congressman that political candidates should be able to challenge their states’ election laws.
During the approximately two-hour argument, the justices grappled with what political candidates, particularly those with nearly guaranteed success in an election, must show in order to bring a legal challenge to election rules.
The argument centered on a threshold question: What is the legal standard candidates must meet to prove they have been harmed by a rule?
If the court were to endorse an expansive definition for who can bring such challenges, it could clear the way for a flood of litigation against all sorts of state election rules, particularly from Republicans who have argued that the rules in some states favor Democrats.
The case is one of several lawsuits brought by allies of President Trump to question the guidelines around mail-in ballots, which he has long attacked and falsely blamed for his 2020 election loss as more people voted by mail during the pandemic.
It is also the first of several voting rights and election-related disputes the justices are scheduled to hear this term, setting up an important year for the court and the mechanics of democracy.
The suit was brought by Representative Mike Bost, a six-term Republican who represents a district in downstate Illinois. Mr. Bost sued in May 2022 to challenge an Illinois law that allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they are received up to 14 days later.
Mr. Bost argued that the late-ballot rule was superseded by laws enacted by Congress setting the time for federal elections. But a lower court found he did not have standing to sue because he had failed to show he was directly harmed by the mail-in ballot rule in an election that he won handily.
Many of the conservative justices signaled support for arguments by Paul D. Clement, who represented Mr. Bost.
Mr. Clement asserted that it was obvious that a political candidate should have the ability to challenge an election law, arguing that “a candidate is not a bystander in his or her own election.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared receptive to the idea that candidates, regardless of their chances of victory in an election, should be able to bring lawsuits. If not, the chief justice said, it could be “a potential disaster” if courts felt required to weigh whether a candidate might win or lose.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh echoed this concern, cautioning that federal courts not be reliant on a rule requiring “prognostication” on an election outcome.
But several justices also wrestled with the implications of carving out a new rule specific to Mr. Bost’s case, a worry that Justice Amy Coney Barrett described as fashioning “bespoke rules” for different types of litigants.
The legal challenge has led to some unusual alliances between the Republican congressman and civil rights and voting groups because of a shared concern that a rule making it more difficult to bring election law challenges could affect groups across the political spectrum.
The League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, filed a brief in the case in support of Mr. Bost’s right to bring his legal challenge.
In court filings, they argued that they “vehemently” opposed the substance of Mr. Bost’s challenge to the Illinois mail-in ballot rules. But they added that a ruling against him could also make it more difficult for civil rights and voting rights groups to sue over election laws and get their claims heard.
The Illinois solicitor general, Jane E. Notz, urged the justices to reject Mr. Bost’s arguments. She argued that a win for Mr. Bost would create “chaos” for election officials and federal courts by flooding them with new cases and forcing them to settle all sorts of election rule disputes.
A federal judge dismissed Mr. Bost’s lawsuit in July 2023, determining that he had failed to show he had standing to sue.
Mr. Bost asserted that he had suffered a financial cost because he had to run his campaign for two weeks after the election to monitor ballot receipts and counting. He also argued that, as a candidate, he had a particular interest in an accurate tally of votes.
A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, finding that Mr. Bost was not required to conduct post-election monitoring. Any financial injury, the judges found, was self-inflicted.
Mr. Bost then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his case presented “an opportunity for the court to provide lower courts and litigants much-needed guidance on candidate standing, outside of the high-stakes, emergency, post-election litigation where these issues commonly arise.”
Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting.
The post Justices Appear Open to Challenge of Mail-In Ballot Rules by Illinois Politician appeared first on New York Times.
