Supreme Court hands Republicans 'the most important election law ruling in a generation'

On Tuesday, January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 7-3 ruling in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. Overturning a 7th Circuit Court decision, the justices found that Rep. Michael Bost (R-Illinois) could challenge a state law that allowed the counting of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day as long as they were postmarked before Election Day.

The two dissenters were Democrat-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, voted with the six GOP-appointed justices and joined Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a concurring opinion.

Journalist Oriana González examines the decision's possible results in an article for NOTUS, noting Democratic concerns that it could lead to an avalanche of election-related lawsuits ahead of the 2026 midterms.

"In 2022, Bost sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, challenging a law that allowed the counting of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day," González explains. "Lower federal courts initially dismissed the lawsuit, arguing that because Bost won his election with 75 percent of the vote, he lacked standing to bring the case. But on Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, in a 7-2 decision, that Bost had a right to sue because 'he is a candidate for office. And a candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election'…. Bost said he feels confident that judges will rule in his favor moving forward."

Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, believes the ruling "sets the stage" for more challenges to mail-in ballots.

Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing legal group Judicial Watch, described the Bost decision as "the most important Supreme Court election law ruling in a generation.”

But some Democrats are highly critical of the decision.

In her dissent, Jackson — an appointee of former President Joe Biden — wrote, "Alarmingly, today's ruling also has far-reaching implications beyond Bost's election, since dispensing with our usual standing requirements opens the floodgates to exactly the type of troubling election-related litigation the Court purportedly wants to avoid."

Jackson also wrote that the ruling "complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America's electoral processes." And Obama appointee Sotomayor concurred.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) was critical of the High Court's decision as well and warned, "We're assuming that Republicans are going to do everything possible to prevent a free and fair election from taking place in November 2026."

Read the full NOTUS article at this link.