Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us1r05_e2q3.pdf
Case background
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 and two other political candidates
filed a lawsuit claiming that counting ballots received after election day
violates federal law. They principally contended that doing so conflicts
with 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1, which set election day as the Tuesday
following the first Monday in November. The district court dismissed the
case, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that petitioners
lacked standing.
Questions Presented
Holding
As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the
rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. Candidates have a
concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting
of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their
electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns — their
interest extends to the integrity of the election and the democratic
process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to
represent. Candidates need not show a substantial risk that a rule will
cause them to lose the election or prevent them from achieving a legally
significant vote threshold.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Barrett filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/607us1r05_e2q3.pdf
Case background
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 and two other political candidates
filed a lawsuit claiming that counting ballots received after election day
violates federal law. They principally contended that doing so conflicts
with 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1, which set election day as the Tuesday
following the first Monday in November. The district court dismissed the
case, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that petitioners
lacked standing.
Questions Presented
Holding
As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the
rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. Candidates have a
concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting
of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their
electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns — their
interest extends to the integrity of the election and the democratic
process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to
represent. Candidates need not show a substantial risk that a rule will
cause them to lose the election or prevent them from achieving a legally
significant vote threshold.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Barrett filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.