Judicial Watch 10/7/2025
Judicial Watch announced today that oral argument will be held on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, in the Supreme Court of the United States in a historic case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who are before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day (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)).
The case concerns whether Bost and the electors have standing to challenge Illinois’ counting of ballots that arrive after the Election Day deadlines set by federal law. The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022. A lower court dismissed the claim for lack of standing, which was upheld by a split 2-1 panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“This is the most important Supreme Court election law case in a generation. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive AFTER Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in closely to Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court arguments Wednesday,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch’s September brief to the High Court states:
Illinois counts mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. Petitioners, candidates for federal office, claim that under controlling federal law that is two weeks too long. As a result, Illinois is counting unlawful ballots and producing inaccurate vote tallies, while simultaneously hurting petitioners’ prospects at the ballot box and injuring their pocketbooks.
Judicial Watch submits that the Seventh Circuit’s decision is wrong and dangerous:
It is wrong because candidates have standing to challenge the rules that govern their elections, especially when their merits theory (which must be credited for standing purposes) is that the challenged rule produces an inaccurate final tally. At a minimum, the candidate has standing when (as here) he plausibly alleges that the challenged rule will harm his electoral prospects and reduce his bank balance because he needs to pay campaign staff an extra two weeks. And the decision is dangerous because it forces judges to play political prognosticators, skews standing rules to favor certain kinds of candidates, and funnels election disputes to the worst possible context—namely, after the election where judges are asked to declare political winners. This Court should reverse.
More:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/scotus-election-integrity-case/
