The Supreme Court Ruled that Political Candidates can Challenge State Election Laws, Reviving a Lawsuit by an Illinois Congressman and potentially Changing how Election Disputes are Handled in Court. In a 7–2 Secision, the Supreme Court Ruled that Representative Mike Bost (R-IL, 12th District) has Standing to Sue Illinois over its Practice of Counting Mail-in-Ballots received after Election Day, a Policy Criticized by Trump (R). Bost Argued that after the 2020 Presidential Election, Candidates faced New Limitations on Challenging Campaign Rrules.
Writing for the Majority, Chief Justice John Robert,s Agreed that Candidates have a Personal Stake in How Elections are Run and how Ballots are Tallied. “Candidates, in short, are not ‘mere bystanders’ in their own elections,” Roberts wrote. “They have an obvious personal stake in how the result is determined and regarded.”
The justices were Not Asked to Rule on the Legality of Illinois’ Mail-in Ballot Process. Lower Courts had previously Rejected Bost’s Case, finding that the Votes were unlikely to Significantly Affect His Race. Roberts wrote that Candidates can be Harmed by Unlawful Election Rules in Multiple Ways, including Lost Elections, Wasted Resources, Lower Vote Totals, and Damaged Reputations.
“Win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law,” the Chief Justice said. “Thus, the long-shot and shoo-in alike would suffer harm if a state chose to conduct its election by, say, flipping a coin,” He added.
According to Roberts, Counting Unlawful Votes or Discarding Lawful Ones, Undermines Public Confidence in Elections, which in turn Weakens Ttrust in the Elected Representative. Allowing the Lawsuit to Proceed could Encourage Candidates from both Parties to Challenge Election Rules in Court. Illinois, however, warned that siding with Bost could also Create “Chaos” for Election Officials.
For Context, more than a Dozen States, along with the District of Columbia, accept Mail-in-Ballots after Election Day, if they are Postmarked and Certified on Time. Legal Floodgates, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warned that Ignoring the Standing Requirements ‘opens the floodgates.’. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, called the Ruling a “dubious departure from settled law,” noting that Standing Ddepends on a “Personal Stake” in the Dispute.
“The court declares that all candidates have standing to challenge election regulations in light of their interest in a ‘fair process,’” Jackson wrote. “No matter that, in a democratic society like ours, the interest in a fair electoral process is common to all members of the voting public. The Court thus ignores a core constitutional requirement while unnecessarily thrusting the Judiciary into the political arena,” She added.
The justice Warned that Ignoring the Standing Rrequirements “opens the floodgates” to “troubling election-related litigation.” Roberts Dismissed the Iidea that the Ruling would Lead to Lawsuits, Writing that it is “neither clear why candidates would waste their resources in this way nor on what basis in federal law such suits could be brought.”
The Republican National Committee (RNC) Praised the Supreme Court’s Decision, calling it a “Major Win” for Election Integrity and “Basic Accountability.”
“Federal law is clear: Election Day should be the deadline for ballots to be received, which is why the RNC filed an amicus brief supporting Congressman Bost’s challenge to Illinois’ ridiculous practice of counting ballots received up to two weeks after an election,” said RNC Chairman Joe Gruters.
“Today, the Court confirmed candidates can challenge unlawful election procedures in their own races – a key step toward ending this unlawful scheme,” He added.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment