The following is from Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch announced that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear its appeal in a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, challenging an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day—despite federal law setting a uniform election date.
The case, Rep.Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568), was previously dismissed by lower courts, which ruled Bost lacked standing to sue.
“It is an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks AFTER Election Day,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity. Illinois’ 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.”
Federal law defines Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even-numbered year. The complaint notes:
“Despite Congress’ clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.”
Illinois law permits counting mail-in ballots received after polls close on Election Day—including ballots without postmarks—so long as they are dated on or before Election Day. Judicial Watch argues this undermines federal election standards and injures candidates affected by delayed vote counting.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Judicial Watch stated:
“For over 130 years, this Court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place, or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Indeed, ‘it’s hard to imagine anyone who has a more particularized injury than the candidate has.’ … That is because a candidate who ‘pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail, and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different—and more particularized—interest in the lawfulness of the election’ than ‘some random voter.’”
“Petitioners are a sitting multi-term Congressman and two federal electors. They challenged an Illinois law … that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the day specified in federal statutes for holding federal elections … They contend that Illinois’ Receipt Deadline is preempted by the federal Election Day statutes.”
“This petition presents an opportunity for the Court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidate standing, outside of the high-stakes, emergency, post-election litigation where these issues commonly arise.”
Judicial Watch attorneys Robert Popper and Christine Svenson are leading the case. Popper previously served in the Justice Dept.’s Civil Rights Division overseeing voting rights enforcement.
As part of its broader election integrity work, Judicial Watch has filed similar lawsuits challenging post-Election Day ballot counting in states including Mississippi and California, and has taken legal action to clean up voter rolls in Illinois, Oregon, and several other jurisdictions under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The group says these efforts have led to the removal of over five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.
Read the full press release here.
