SCOTUS Decision On Mail-In Voting Rules Could Impact Elections Going Forward
The U.S. Supreme Court last week handed a significant victory to election integrity advocates, reviving a challenge brought by Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) against an Illinois law that allows absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted for up to two weeks afterward.
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that Bost has legal standing to challenge the state statute, which he argues conflicts with federal law establishing a uniform Election Day for federal elections. The decision reverses lower court rulings that had dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, made clear that candidates for public office have a direct stake in how votes are counted — not merely in whether the rules help or hurt them politically, but in the legitimacy of the electoral process itself.
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” Roberts wrote. “Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.”
Bost filed his lawsuit in 2022, arguing that Illinois’ mail-in ballot policy violates federal statutes that designate a single Election Day for congressional and presidential elections. Courts below had rejected his claim, concluding that he lacked the legal right, or “standing,” to bring the case.
Two liberal justices dissented, warning that the ruling could unleash a wave of litigation challenging state election laws, according to CNN.
Legal analysts say the decision could indeed encourage similar lawsuits across the country, particularly as disputes over election procedures remain a central political issue. Illinois officials had argued that allowing such challenges would burden election administrators and disrupt established voting practices.
Bost has not alleged fraud in his filings. President Donald J. Trump, currently serving his second term, has long criticized extended mail-in ballot deadlines and post-Election Day vote counting, arguing they undermine public confidence in elections. The Illinois law at issue has been on the books since 2005.
CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck warned the ruling could have sweeping consequences.
“Today’s ruling could open the door to a lot of litigation—and potential chaos – on the far side of the next contested election,” Vladeck said.
“If candidates will generally have standing to challenge how votes are counted in any election they’re running in, that could dramatically expand the horizon of legal challenges that can be brought challenging even those elections that were completely by the book,” he added, “potentially injecting more uncertainty in those critical days and weeks after Election Day going forward.”
Others see the decision as a long-overdue course correction. Susan Shelley, president of the nonpartisan civic organization Valley VOTE, argued in a Hill op-ed that the ruling could fundamentally reshape American elections.
“Federal law (2 U.S. Code Section 7) states that there is one ‘day for the election.’ That law may preempt dozens of state laws that say ballots cast on election day must be accepted days or weeks later. The question is, who has the right to sue over it?” Shelley wrote.
She answered her own question by citing the Court’s ruling:
“Now we know: any candidate for federal office. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that candidates have ‘standing’ to file a legal challenge to ‘the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns.’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘Their interest extends to the integrity of the election — and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.’”
Shelley raised the obvious implication of the decision: “Did the Supreme Court just tell us that late-arriving mail ballots are a threat to election integrity? This could get interesting in a hurry.”
She noted that the ruling marks a sharp break from past precedent, under which courts treated candidates no differently than ordinary voters when it came to challenging election rules.
“A ban on counting late-arriving ballots in elections for a federal office would affect nearly all elections, because all 435 seats in Congress are on the ballot every two years,” Shelley wrote. “Removing election integrity risks in federal races would also clean up state and local races on the same ballots.”