Supreme Court will consider reviving Republican challenge to Illinois
law on mail ballots
[June 03, 2025]
By Catrina Barker | The Center Square contributor
(The Center Square) – In a move that could have major implications for
election procedures across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court has
agreed to take up a case brought by Judicial Watch challenging whether
federal courts have jurisdiction to hear disputes over ballots received
after Election Day.
Illinois U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, and two electors sued over
ballots counted after Election Day. Illinois allows for mail-in ballots
to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day, if the ballots are
postmarked by Election Day.
The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in a lower court, but
the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will review it, according to
Bost’s attorney Russell Nobile.
“This isn’t about whether counting ballots after Election Day is
unlawful – that’s not what’s being decided yet,” Nobile told The Center
Square shortly after SCOTUS agreed to look at the case. “The Supreme
Court is first going to decide whether federal courts even have the
power to hear these types of challenges.”
Nobile explained the case is key to resolving a split between appeals
courts, with the Fifth Circuit calling late ballot counting unlawful and
the Seventh refusing to hear such cases.
“This practice of counting late ballots is relatively new – it really
started gaining ground after Bush v. Gore,” Nobile saidd. “For most of
American history, ballots had to be received by Election Day.”
[to top of second column]
|
Illinois U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, declares victory in
Tuesday's primary
BlueRoomStream
If the Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction, the case returns to the
Seventh Circuit. A win there could affect federal elections in that
circuit. A possible Supreme Court ruling on the issue down the road
could apply nationwide.
Nobile explained it's important to have courts open to candidates to
promote election integrity and confidence in the electoral process.
“The public needs to know that these concerns can be heard and ruled
on,” said Nobile. “Even if a candidate doesn’t win on the merits,
the process has to be transparent. That’s essential to maintaining
trust in our elections.”
The plaintiffs argue that extending the ballot-counting period
burdens campaigns. Bost, representing 34 counties, faces financial
and logistical costs for keeping his campaign open 14 extra days.
Judicial Watch claims these costs create a constitutional injury,
establishing standing.
“If you’ve ever run any kind of organized effort, like a campaign or
even a Girl Scout troop, you understand that extending things by 14
days costs time, energy and money,” Nobile said. “This is an
institutional issue. It’s about ensuring there’s a legal forum where
candidates can raise legitimate questions about how our elections
are run. That’s crucial to a well-functioning democracy.” |
