U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Whether Candidates Have Standing to Challenge Laws on When Ballots Must be Received

Posted on by June 2, 2025

On June 2, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that on May 29, it had decided to hear Bost v Illinois State Board of Elections, 24-568. The original issue in the case had been a challenge to the 2005 Illinois law that allowed postal ballots to be counted if they had been received after election day, but had been postmarked by election day. The lower federal courts had held that the plaintiffs, who were Republican Party nominees for U.S. House and presidential elector, did not have standing to challenge the law. Here is the cert petition.

The plaintiffs are only asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that candidates do have standing to challenge election laws; they are not asking the Court to decide the original issue of whether states can count ballots that arrive after election day. Assuming the Court rules in favor of standing for candidates, that would be helpful to plaintiffs in many types of election law lawsuits.

Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Whether Candidates Have Standing to Challenge Laws on When Ballots Must be Received — 30 Comments

  1. scotus –

    standing brain rot for decades

    Who in Hell are consts made to protect ???
    The PEOPLE or govts hacks ???
    Who created the USA Const ???
    See Art VII
    Thus –
    The People and the State hacks have standing to enforce all requirements and restrictions in the USA Constitution re USA govt hacks.

    The People and the USA hacks have standing to enforce all requirements and restrictions in the USA Constitution re State govt hacks.

    Sanctions on all moron / frivolous plaintiffs and their worse so-called lawyers.

  4. If there were no mail ballots, there wouldn’t be any of this idiocy about receiving them after the election. All votes should be counted and results announced on election night. No one should be voting or counting votes before or after election night.

  6. Duh, without mail ballots, how would overseas military voters be able to vote?

  7. In person on their base or ship or deployment point on election night, and the results can then be transmitted through whatever communication means exist in those circumstances – phone, radio, satellite transmission, video call, television signal, etc .

  8. Also , stop making military voters an excuse for the vast majority of mail ballots which are from civilians.

    Also, maybe government employees shouldn’t vote at all? It’s kind of a conflict of interest, if you think about it.

  10. Voters should be those prepared to serve in local office. Being a military veteran should be one of the requirements to be a voter, but being currently deployed would preclude serving locally.

  13. So, “Standing Count Stan”, you support taxation without representation? That’s something the Founders (the original patriots of this country) literally fought a war against a superpower to correct. Also, most of us view Starship Troopers as a parody, not an ideal.

  15. Whatever the merits of this particular case, it is good for candidates to have standing on ballot issues.

  16. Joshua, thanks for asking.

    Stan is my actual name. Standing Count is a plan I helped my ex Vera and her long time friend Max develop.

    Government workers, contractors and aid recipients dilute the votes of those pay their salaries or otherwise support them financially. That’s a conflict of interest.

    I say this as someone who spent a good chunk of my working life as a government employee in the military and law enforcement. Vera agrees; we met while serving in law enforcement in Florida together.

    I’m currently ineligible to vote under the criteria in my proposal. For one thing, at my age I’m no longer in shape to do front line military and law enforcement type duties.

    I think the US founding fathers were trying to design a good system, but got a lot of things wrong, as can be seen from all the wrong directions society and government have evolved over the last 250 years. So, my/our proposals fix that by closing those loopholes and imagining moving in an opposite, much more positive direction.

    We also seek to reverse the ill effects of the so called “enlightenment” and prevent such harmful and dangerous social changes from happening again, among many other things.

    The founding US patriarchs were certainly brave and I believe by and large well intentioned, but patriot is an odd term for rebels and traitors against their then country and king. Revolutionaries is accurate. So is secessionists.

    They would have been appalled by many ways the US has subsequently evolved, from the social rot (progressive social disease) to the international entanglements, standing army, overgrown government interfering in every aspect of life , millions of bureaucrats, endless laws and regulations, and many other things which they did not foresee that went wrong and are going more and more wrong at an ever accelerating rate.

    My proposals fix the reasons why their system did not prevent these breakdowns of the social, economic, and governmental order they intended.

  17. I forgot to mention that under my proposals I would also be ineligible to vote because I receive pensions for my government employment and various age based “entitlements” or “benefits.” The U.S. founding patriarchs’ failure to permanently limit who all can ever vote was one of the biggest errors they made.

    The limits which existed in voting in their time should of course be restored, but greatly expanded. Government should be much more devolved to the very local level. Trade,travel, and especially migration – particularly for long distances – would be far more difficult. Laws would be far fewer, and far more difficult to change. Etc.

  18. I don’t know the majority of whom think Starship Troopers was a parody. Heinlein certainly didn’t. Per wiki:

    Heinlein decisively ended his juvenile novels with Starship Troopers (1959), a controversial work and his personal riposte to leftists calling for President Dwight D. Eisenhower to stop nuclear testing in 1958. “The ‘Patrick Henry’ ad shocked ’em”, he wrote many years later of the campaign. “Starship Troopers outraged ’em.” Starship Troopers is a coming-of-age story about duty, citizenship, and the role of the military in society. The book portrays a society in which suffrage is earned by demonstrated willingness to place society’s interests before one’s own, at least for a short time and often under onerous circumstances, in government service; in the case of the protagonist, this was military service.

    Later, in Expanded Universe, Heinlein said that it was his intention in the novel that service could include positions outside strictly military functions such as teachers, police officers, and other government positions. This is presented in the novel as an outgrowth of the failure of unearned suffrage government and as a very successful arrangement. In addition, the franchise was only awarded after leaving the assigned service; thus those serving their terms—in the military, or any other service—were excluded from exercising any franchise. Career military were completely disenfranchised until retirement.

    ….
    Stranger in a Strange Land originated as a modernized version of Kipling’s The Jungle Book. His wife suggested that the child be raised by Martians instead of wolves. Likewise, Citizen of the Galaxy can be seen as a reboot of Kipling’s novel Kim.

    The Starship Troopers idea of needing to serve in the military in order to vote can be found in Kipling’s “The Army of a Dream”:

    But as a little detail we never mention, if we don’t volunteer in some corps or other—as combatants if we’re fit, as non-combatants if we ain’t—till we’re thirty-five—we don’t vote, and we don’t get poor-relief, and the women don’t love us.

  19. Joshua may be referring to the disgraceful movie which was based on Starship Troopers but butchers it badly. It’s much easier to look at the movie as a parody than it is the book.

  20. It’s no more a conflict of interest to have government employees voting, than it is to have voters who receive any social security or medicare or SSI from the federal government.

    As to overseas voters, there is no method for electronic transmission of ballots that preserves the secret vote and which guarantees against voter fraud. If there were such a method, we would all be using it.

  21. Indeed, the book is much better than the movie.

    More wiki:

    Interspersed with the primary plot are classroom scenes in which Rico and others discuss philosophical and moral issues, including aspects of suffrage, civic virtue, juvenile delinquency, and war; these discussions have been described as expounding Heinlein’s own political views. Identified with a tradition of militarism in US science fiction, the novel draws parallels between the conflict between humans and the Bugs, and the Cold War. It is also a coming-of-age novel, which criticizes the US society of the 1950s, arguing that a lack of discipline had led to a moral decline, and advocating corporal and capital punishment.

    __

    Therefore, the novel makes excellent points which are all the more true today than in the 1950s, although as some of us can remember they were plenty true even then.

    The progressive disease of society has kept metastasizing in the interim, so that by the time the movie was made, Heinlein’s views were so out of step with perverse Hollywood film industry values that they could only plausibly be produced in a somewhat ironic way, as if they were intended to be parody.

    But, that’s why my plan is needed to stop and reverse this rot, prevent it from recurring, and gradually fix the damage of the last few centuries over the next several.

    Verhoeven’s movie is best viewed as an unintended expose of what went wrong in society between the 1950s and 1990s, and more wrong since then. He started production on what was then called bug hunt at outpost nine before he acquired movie rights to starship troopers after Heinlein died. He never even finished reading the book.

    The film had the stated intention of treating its material in an ironic or sarcastic manner, to undermine the political ideology of the novel. The book was excellent, and the movie was typical leftist Hollywood trash.

  22. “It’s no more a conflict of interest to have government employees voting, than it is to have voters who receive any social security or medicare or SSI from the federal government.”

    You are correct. As I already said, neither one should be voting.

    The federal government should be dissolved, but that’s a separate matter. The principle should apply just as much at the local level (which should eventually become the only level).

  23. In case it somehow wasn’t clear. I mean both are an obvious conflict of interest, so neither one should have any voting rights. Yes, that includes me.

    Welfare recipients should also have no voting rights. Non property owners, non gun owners, females, and many others should be excluded from voting. All for good, logical reasons.

  24. “As to overseas voters, there is no method for electronic transmission of ballots that preserves the secret vote and which guarantees against voter fraud. If there were such a method, we would all be using it.”

    The secret vote itself virtually guarantees massive voter fraud, which is one of the many reasons we should get rid of it .

    However, if we didn’t, vote COUNTS can still be transmitted.

    As my name implies, there should be no ballots. All voting should be by standing count or voice vote and on the record.

  25. RESTRICTED VOTERS = MORE OF OLDE MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS — AKA SMALL RULING CLASS

    USING POPULATION AS SLAVES/SERFS AND CANNON FODDER IN FORN WARS

    SEE OLDE ENGLAND — BEFORE CREATION OF OLDE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN LATE 1200S — MONARCH AND OLIGARCHS – LORDS.

    VERY SLOW INCREASE IN POWER OF HOUSE OF COMMONS UNTIL VARIOUS TYRANT MONARCHS IN 1600S –
    1642-1649 ENGLISH CIIVL WAR [KING CHARLES I CAPTURED / TRIED / CONVICTED / HEAD CHOPPED OFF) AND 1688-1689 GLORIOUS REVOLUTION —
    TYRANT KING JAMES II REGIME DESTROYED – PARLIAMENT SUPREME – NEW REGIME WILLIAM AND MARY FROM OLDE HOLLAND

    ALL NOTED IN AM REV WAR 1775-1784 AND IN 1787 USA CONST

  27. Screaming doesn’t help your case, and you have not made a case why the subsequent system is better, now or ever. Of course, there can be no such expectations of a spambot. Others here can give it a try if so inclined. As noted , I took the views of US Founding patriarchs and what went wrong with their system as it has subsequently evolved into consideration when coming up with mine along with Vera and Max.

  28. Deep state “Intel” is distorted BULLSHIT. Kudos to president Trump for not reading it. That indicates high intelligence and a healthy sense of priorities.

  30. Ussr yesterday FAKE NEWS + spambot AZ = 666 BULLSHIT

    Liberator Trump is making America great and free again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.