Supreme Court to Hear Appeal from Illinois Congressman on Late-Arriving Absentee Ballots
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will take up a case brought by Illinois Republican Representative Mike Bost, who is challenging his state’s decision to count absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day. This legal battle has become part of a larger national debate about the rules surrounding mail-in voting, especially when ballots are counted days or even weeks after the polls close.
What’s the Core Issue?
At the heart of the case is Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to be received up to two weeks after Election Day — as long as those ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day itself. Bost argues that this practice violates federal law, which sets a uniform date for federal elections and, by implication, requires all ballots to be counted only if they arrive by Election Day.
But this is no simple procedural fight. It touches on the balance between making voting accessible and ensuring election integrity — a debate that has intensified since the rise of mail-in voting during the pandemic.
The Lower Court Rulings and Legal Hurdles
Back in 2022, Bost filed suit, claiming the Illinois post-election ballot counting window broke federal election law. However, his challenge hit a major roadblock when a federal district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Bost and other plaintiffs lacked standing — meaning they couldn’t show they were directly harmed by the law. This is a crucial legal point; without standing, courts refuse to hear a case.
On appeal, a divided 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal. The court said Bost’s claim was more hypothetical than actual. For example, Bost tried to argue that his campaign had to spend money to keep staff monitoring ballots during the extended counting period, but the court noted he won reelection by a comfortable margin anyway. The judges pointed out that:
“Plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by choosing to spend money to mitigate such conjectural risks.”
Interestingly, the 7th Circuit panel included judges appointed by both President Trump and President Biden, signaling a split viewpoint. One judge, Michael Scudder — appointed by Trump — dissented strongly. He argued that Bost, as a sitting congressman running for reelection, was far from a mere bystander and that the court should consider the merits of his complaint.
What’s Next? The Supreme Court Weighs In
Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, likely bringing arguments this fall. This is a big deal because the justices will address whether states can count ballots arriving after Election Day — a practice followed by roughly 20 other states and jurisdictions across the country.
If the Supreme Court sides with Bost, it could upend how many states handle absentee ballots and potentially restrict mail-in voting windows nationwide. That would have massive implications for upcoming elections, especially considering the growing use of mail ballots.
The Bigger Picture: National Politics and Election Rules
The battle over late-arriving mail ballots isn’t isolated to Illinois. It’s part of a broader Republican push to roll back expansions of mail-in voting that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Former President Donald Trump has been vocal in opposing these extended deadlines, even issuing an executive order pressuring states to reject ballots received after Election Day.
However, his efforts have faced legal challenges and mixed results in courts. For example, a federal appeals court in Louisiana ruled last year that Mississippi was violating federal law by counting mail ballots received after Election Day but stopped short of stopping the practice before the election.
Why This Matters: Election Integrity vs. Voter Access
At its core, this legal fight boils down to two competing values:
-
Election Integrity: Ensuring all ballots counted are valid, timely, and consistent with federal laws.
-
Voter Access: Making sure eligible voters have enough time and flexibility to cast their ballots, especially given delays caused by postal services and pandemic-related concerns.
States allowing ballots to arrive days after Election Day argue that as long as those ballots were mailed on or before the election date, they should count. Opponents worry about opening the door to potential fraud or undermining the finality of election results.
Some Quick Facts and Figures
-
Around 20 states and jurisdictions allow counting ballots that arrive after Election Day.
-
The Illinois law at issue allows ballots to be received up to two weeks after Election Day.
-
Ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted.
-
Republican lawsuits are popping up in multiple states attempting to roll back mail-in voting expansions.
What Bost Said and the Courts’ Reaction
Mike Bost, first elected in 2014 and representing a district in Southern Illinois, has been vocal about his concerns. He claims that the extended counting window creates an unfair burden on his campaign, which must keep staff on for longer to monitor the counting process — essentially costing money to protect against a hypothetical disadvantage.
But courts have been skeptical. Despite Bost’s arguments, the 7th Circuit noted he won reelection by a “healthy margin” and that spending money to prevent speculative harm doesn’t constitute legal injury.
The Divide Among Judges
The 7th Circuit’s decision wasn’t unanimous. Judge Michael Scudder dissented, emphasizing that as an active congressman campaigning for reelection, Bost had a tangible stake in the outcome:
“As a sitting member of Congress in the midst of an ongoing reelection campaign, he is nothing close to a ‘mere bystander’ to the upcoming election or the allegation at the heart of this lawsuit.”
This dissent highlights the ongoing tension in courts over how strictly to interpret “standing” and who has the right to challenge election laws.
Looking Ahead: What Could Change?
With the Supreme Court stepping in, several outcomes are possible:
-
If the Court rules for Bost: States could be forced to stop counting ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked on time. This would shorten mail-in voting windows and possibly invalidate ballots currently counted.
-
If the Court rules against Bost: States could continue their current practices, allowing more flexibility for absentee voters and election officials to count late-arriving ballots.
Either way, the decision will have ripple effects for election administration nationwide — especially as mail-in voting continues to be a key option for many Americans.
Why Should You Care?
You might wonder why this legal tussle matters outside political circles. Here’s why:
-
It affects how easy or hard it is to vote by mail — a method millions rely on.
-
It could influence how soon election results are finalized, impacting political stability.
-
The ruling will shape future election laws across the country.
-
It’s a key chapter in the ongoing national conversation about trust in the electoral system.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Bost’s appeal puts the spotlight back on an issue that’s only going to get bigger as elections grow more complex. With mail-in voting likely here to stay in some form, the court’s interpretation of federal election law and state flexibility will be crucial for how Americans vote in years to come.
Keep an eye on this case — it’s shaping the future of democracy one ballot at a time.
Login