8
8
0
"Supreme Court rules House Republican can challenge mail ballot deadline"
Well, you can expect to see much commentary on this SCOTUS Opinion in the coming weeks.
CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,LTC David Brown
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
Well, you can expect to see much commentary on this SCOTUS Opinion in the coming weeks.
CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones,LTC David Brown
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
Access to this page has been denied
Posted from thehill.comPosted in these groups: 
Supreme Court
Voting
Supreme Court Voting
Posted 29 d ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
SGT (Join to see) I don't want to get mass RP beat down. So I will keep it simple. I stayed up off and on during the ballot count. hmmm??? A fellow veteran in Carson City, Nevada said her deceased grandmother (over 10 years) voted. hehehehe
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Waiting for the first person to claim that mail in ballots are the same thing as absentee ballots.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
On Wednesday, January 14, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that Republican Representative Mike Bost of Illinois has the legal "standing" to challenge a state law regarding mail-in ballot deadlines.
The ruling is significant because it lowers the bar for political candidates to sue over election rules, even if they cannot prove that those rules would have changed the outcome of their specific race.
Key Details of the Ruling
The Conflict: Illinois law allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but received up to 14 days later. Rep. Bost argued this violates federal law, which establishes a single "Election Day."
The "Standing" Issue: Lower courts had previously dismissed Bost’s lawsuit, arguing he wasn't "harmed" because he won his 2020 election by a wide margin (60% of the vote).
The Supreme Court’s View: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that candidates have a "concrete and particularized interest" in the rules of their elections. He argued that candidates should be able to challenge rules before an election happens to avoid chaotic, last-minute legal battles after the votes are cast.
The Dissent: Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the decision "opens the floodgates" to unnecessary litigation by allowing any candidate to sue over any rule, regardless of whether it actually affects them.
What Happens Next?
It is important to note that the Court did not strike down the mail-in ballot deadline itself yet. This specific ruling only gives Rep. Bost the right to continue his lawsuit in lower courts.
However, a much larger decision is looming. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a separate case, Watson v. Republican National Committee (concerning Mississippi’s deadlines), later this spring. That case will likely determine once and for all whether states are constitutionally allowed to count any mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
The ruling is significant because it lowers the bar for political candidates to sue over election rules, even if they cannot prove that those rules would have changed the outcome of their specific race.
Key Details of the Ruling
The Conflict: Illinois law allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but received up to 14 days later. Rep. Bost argued this violates federal law, which establishes a single "Election Day."
The "Standing" Issue: Lower courts had previously dismissed Bost’s lawsuit, arguing he wasn't "harmed" because he won his 2020 election by a wide margin (60% of the vote).
The Supreme Court’s View: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that candidates have a "concrete and particularized interest" in the rules of their elections. He argued that candidates should be able to challenge rules before an election happens to avoid chaotic, last-minute legal battles after the votes are cast.
The Dissent: Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the decision "opens the floodgates" to unnecessary litigation by allowing any candidate to sue over any rule, regardless of whether it actually affects them.
What Happens Next?
It is important to note that the Court did not strike down the mail-in ballot deadline itself yet. This specific ruling only gives Rep. Bost the right to continue his lawsuit in lower courts.
However, a much larger decision is looming. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a separate case, Watson v. Republican National Committee (concerning Mississippi’s deadlines), later this spring. That case will likely determine once and for all whether states are constitutionally allowed to count any mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google