Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Overview

A case in which the Court held that a candidate for elected office has standing under Article III to challenge election rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.

Summary

A case in which the Court held that a candidate for elected office has standing under Article III to challenge election rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.

Facts

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day. Congressman Michael Bost, along with presidential elector nominees Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, arguing that counting ballots received after election day violates federal law.

Facts

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day. Congressman Michael Bost, along with presidential elector nominees Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, arguing that counting ballots received after election day violates federal law.

Issue

Whether a state law requiring election officials to count mail-in ballots received within two weeks of Election Day, if postmarked by Election Day, conflicts with federal statutes establishing Election Day as the deadline for conducting federal elections and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

Issue

Whether a state law requiring election officials to count mail-in ballots received within two weeks of Election Day, if postmarked by Election Day, conflicts with federal statutes establishing Election Day as the deadline for conducting federal elections and is therefore preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

Rule

3 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 U.S.C. § 7 fix Election Day for presidential electors and members of Congress as a single uniform day. Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997), held that federal law preempts a Louisiana open-primary system that allowed elections to conclude before the federally mandated Election Day. The Elections Clause (Art. I, § 4) permits states to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections but yields to congressional override. Courts have divided on whether accepting late-received, timely-postmarked ballots extends the election past Election Day in violation of federal law.

Standing Requirement

**U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2** 2 3 A plaintiff must demonstrate **injury in fact**, **causation**, and **redressability** to establish standing in federal court.

Analysis

A candidate for federal office has a direct, personal stake in the rules that govern how votes are counted in their own election. This is not a generalized grievance shared by all citizens. Bost is not complaining about government conduct that affects everyone equally. He is challenging specific ballot-counting procedures that determine whether he wins or loses his seat. That is a concrete, particularized injury.

State Regulation of Federal Elections

**U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4 (Elections Clause)** 4 5 States prescribe the **time, place, and manner** of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, subject to Congressional override.

Conclusion

**The Supreme Court held 7-2 that candidates for federal office have Article III standing to challenge laws governing vote counting in their elections.** Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Barrett, joined by Kagan, concurred in the judgment. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented.

The decision establishes that candidates are not merely generalized grievants when they challenge the rules that decide their own elections. Reversed and remanded to the Seventh Circuit.

Federal Election Day Statute

**2 U.S.C. Section 7 (Federal Election Day)** 6 7 Federal law establishes a **uniform election day** for congressional elections.

Candidate Standing Analysis

A candidate for federal office has a direct, personal stake in the rules that govern how votes are counted in their own election. This is not a generalized grievance shared by all citizens. Bost is not complaining about government conduct that affects everyone equally. He is challenging specific ballot-counting procedures that determine whether he wins or loses his seat. That is a concrete, particularized injury.

Elections Clause and Federal Law

The Elections Clause gives states authority over election procedures, but that authority is not unlimited. Federal law sets a uniform election day. Whether Illinois can extend ballot receipt past that day is a federal question. A candidate whose election turns on the answer has standing to ask the court to resolve it.

Conclusion

**The Supreme Court held 7-2 that candidates for federal office have Article III standing to challenge laws governing vote counting in their elections.** Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Barrett, joined by Kagan, concurred in the judgment. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented. 8 9 The decision establishes that candidates are not merely generalized grievants when they challenge the rules that decide their own elections. Reversed and remanded to the Seventh Circuit.