Congressman Michael Bost and two other candidates sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, challenging a state law that permits election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. The plaintiffs argued this procedure conflicts with federal statutes setting Election Day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. The District Court dismissed the case, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, ruling that the candidates lacked standing because they could not prove the late counting would cause them to lose or that the costs of monitoring the count were sufficient. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether candidates have standing to challenge election counting rules without proving a specific risk of electoral defeat.
The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that candidates have a personal stake in the rules governing the counting of votes in their elections. The Court reasoned that candidates are not merely competitors in an economic marketplace but seek to represent the people, and their interest in that prize cannot be severed from their interest in the electoral process. The Court explained that candidates suffer harm when the process departs from the law, regardless of whether they win or lose. This harm includes reputational injury, as rules that undermine the integrity of the electoral process erode public confidence in the results and the elected representative. The Court cited TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, noting that reputational harms are classic Article III injuries, particularly for those whose jobs depend on public support. The Court rejected the requirement that candidates prove a substantial risk of losing the election or failing to achieve a specific vote threshold. Such a requirement would force candidates to wait until after votes are counted to sue, channeling disputes to the eve of an election or post-election, which could result in voter confusion and undermine democratic stability. Furthermore, the Court noted that requiring such proof would turn judges into political prognosticators, a role for which they are ill-suited. The Court concluded that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the integrity of the election and the democratic process, independent of their electoral prospects or campaign costs.
The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for the lower court to address the merits of whether Illinois's post-Election Day counting rules violate federal statutes. This decision establishes that candidates can challenge election counting rules in federal court without proving they are likely to lose the election or that the rules will change the outcome. It lowers the barrier for pre-election litigation regarding election administration, potentially allowing candidates to seek judicial intervention earlier in the process. However, the Court did not rule on the merits of the federal statutes or the Illinois law itself, leaving those questions for the Seventh Circuit to resolve on remand.