By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has revived a lawsuit brought by Illinois Republican Congressman Mike Bost challenging a state law allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. The 7-2 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that candidates have a concrete interest in the rules governing vote counting. Justices debated whether candidates have standing to challenge such laws, despite lower courts dismissing Bost’s suit. This case reflects broader Republican efforts to challenge mail-in voting practices, with sixteen states currently accepting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Read the original article here
US supreme court rules Republican can challenge Illinois mail-in ballot law, but it’s crucial to understand this ruling focuses on *standing*, not the actual merits of the case. In legal terms, “standing” determines whether a party has the right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. The Supreme Court’s decision essentially says this Republican can proceed with their challenge to the Illinois mail-in ballot law. This isn’t a pronouncement on whether the law is good or bad, or even whether it’s constitutional. It’s simply a green light to allow the legal challenge to move forward.
The implication of this ruling is that we’ll have to keep a close eye on how this plays out in the lower courts, and potentially the Supreme Court again, if it gets that far. The details of the Illinois law and the specific arguments will be argued there. Some people see this as a technicality, while others suggest it’s part of a larger political strategy. The question of standing can be as crucial as the underlying merits of the case, because without it, the merits don’t get considered.
Understanding the context around this ruling requires recognizing the deep-seated divisions surrounding voting practices. The perspective is that some individuals or groups believe in-person voting is the preferred method, and there are concerns about the integrity of mail-in ballots. This perspective includes fears of attempts to suppress votes or create difficulties for certain demographics. Others argue for making voting as accessible as possible, including through mail-in options, and view any efforts to restrict these methods as undemocratic.
The core of the issue, as it pertains to the Republican challenge, revolves around how Illinois handles mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before the election date. There is the argument that a voter has voted the moment they submit their ballot by mail, and postmarks should be the deciding factor. The argument further contends that the deadline for mailing ballots should align with when the ballots are received, meaning that votes mailed on election day should be included.
A significant concern revolves around the potential for election manipulation, specifically, the rigging of electronic voting machines. The argument that mail-in voting is harder to manipulate in this context is relevant. Some fear the use of voter intimidation tactics, such as bomb threats, law enforcement presence, and the closing of polling places in Democrat-leaning areas. These practices, if true, are indicative of voter suppression efforts.
There are concerns around the actions of Republican politicians potentially limiting the ease of voting, particularly by mail. The suggestion that Republicans are working to make voting more difficult, by attempting to limit voting places, is another central point. This is viewed by many as an attempt to suppress votes and to influence election outcomes.
Another angle is the debate over the impact of mail-in voting on different demographics. It’s argued that older, white voters are the majority of mail-in voters, and that the impact of changing mail-in voting laws might not fall along the expected partisan lines. The assertion is that these types of changes might not hurt Democrats more.
A key element here is the perception of the Supreme Court’s role and its political leanings. The criticism is that the court is seen as sympathetic to Republican interests, and some worry about the court’s willingness to dismantle voting rights protections. There is a deeply felt sense of distrust, with some feeling the court is not acting neutrally. This is exacerbated by the fact that the appointment process for Supreme Court Justices relies on a simple majority vote.
The question of whether to allow the challenge to move forward is about access to the courts, not the merits of the case. In this ruling, the court allowed the challenge to proceed, which means that the challenger now has the right to argue their case. It is a procedural move, allowing the legal battle to continue.
The discussion also delves into potential solutions. One proposal suggests a longer voting period, such as a month-long voting window, potentially in May, followed by a month of vote counting and the inauguration on July 4th. This highlights the desire for a more accessible and inclusive voting process.
Some express concern that this is yet another example of the Supreme Court making decisions with potential negative consequences. The idea is that such decisions could undermine democratic principles and create additional obstacles to the voting process.
The overall sentiment is one of deep concern regarding the current political climate and the potential for actions that could erode democratic norms and practices.