Latest news with #MichaelBost
Telegraph
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
It's a stain on US democracy that you can vote a fortnight after election day
Illinois doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to clean elections. The mere mention of the state conjures up memories of Chicago's notorious machine politics under the Daley family, and its sway over the 1960 presidential election. But now the Supreme Court has decided to consider a more recent stain against the state's name. In its next session, it has said that it will hear a case challenging Illinois' practice of counting mail-in ballots (known in other countries as postal votes) that arrive up to 14 days after election day. At stake is the integrity of the democratic process and the reasonable expectation that elections, like any competition governed by rules, should not be open to abuse. The case stems from a challenge by Representative Michael Bost (R-Ill), joined by two presidential electors, to an Illinois law that permits mail ballots to be counted even if they arrive up to two weeks after election day. A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge on the grounds of standing. But that was a procedural evasion of a question that demands substantive resolution: can we sustain trust in democratic outcomes while tolerating policies that might allow those outcomes to be perverted? Sixteen states plus the District of Columbia currently allow the counting of absentee ballots that arrive late, in most cases so long as they are postmarked by election day. And it's not a typical red state, blue state problem. Like Illinois, Utah also allows these votes to trickle in for up to 14 days. Maryland and Alaska allow 10. Maybe Alaska, given its geographical challenges, should get a pass. But not the other states. California and New York offer a full week for ballots to arrive after election day. Washington State, remarkably, doesn't even specify an arrival deadline – an open-ended invitation to confusion and loss of trust. The defenders of such policies claim that they improve access to voting. When they are criticised, they tend to respond hysterically that stopping them will end up disenfranchising voters. That's absurd. In most western democracies, mail ballots must arrive on election day or before. Also, the United States is uncommon in the world for its 'no-excuse' absentee voting, meaning that someone doesn't have to be out of their voting area or physically unable to vote in person in order to qualify. Voting is a right. Voting by post is a convenience. The distinction is not semantic. Rights are God-given, immutable, and must be protected. Conveniences, even useful ones, are conditional. The wholly reasonable suggestion here is that, if citizens choose to vote by mail, they should bear the responsibility of ensuring their ballot arrives by election day. In Mississippi, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting ballots after election day is illegal under federal law. This is not radicalism; it is order. The sooner all states move in this direction, the better. Consider what's at risk. Every late-counted vote has the potential to become, in the public mind, a vote that could be questioned. Certainly, a losing politician has every incentive to cast it as such. Every additional day of counting invites suspicion that the process is not being conducted fairly, especially in a country where almost one-third of voters already doubt the fairness of elections, according to a Pew Research Survey. Thus, timely vote-counting is not merely administrative housekeeping, it's about legitimacy. President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity in March directed the Department of Justice to take appropriate legal action against states that count ballots arriving after election day for federal elections. It also proposes tying federal election funding to compliance with this standard. An election is not a season – it is a day. Election day is known in advance. It does not sneak up on the electorate. The ability to mail a ballot on time is not an undue burden; it is a modest civic expectation. If a voter can't manage that deadline, then perhaps in-person early voting or election day voting is the more reliable option. The Supreme Court, when it takes this case in the term beginning this October, has the opportunity to restore a sorely needed sense of boundaries. Trust in democracy begins not when the last ballot arrives, but when the last valid ballot is counted – on time.
Axios
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Supreme Court takes on a GOP challenge to mail-in voting
The Supreme Court said Monday it would take on an Illinois case challenging the validity of mail ballots that arrive past Election Day. Why it matters: Republicans have worked to restrict mail-in voting for years. Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) challenged a state electoral regulation following his reelection. He was joined by two other presidential electors. The current Illinois election law allows mail-in ballots to be counted for up to two weeks after the date of the election, so long as the ballots are postmarked by that date. Zoom out: Lower courts previously ruled that Bost had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit. He's one of three Republicans in the Illinois delegation. The Supreme Court will consider the case during its next term, which begins in October. The challenge is backed by a conservative legal group. Context: 16 states and Washington D.C. have laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day, given that they're postmarked on or before Election Day.
CBS News
02-06-2025
- General
- CBS News
Supreme Court to weigh whether to revive Republicans' challenge to Illinois law for late-arriving ballots
Washington — The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider whether to revive a Republican congressman's callenge to an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to 14 days after Election Day. The dispute involving GOP Rep. Michael Bost will be heard by the Supreme Court in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by the end of June 2026. The question in the case is a procedural one: Whether Bost and two Republican presidential electors have the legal right to challenge state regulations concerning the time, place and manner of federal elections. If the high court finds that the plaintiffs do have the legal standing to sue, their lawsuit could proceed. The case concerns an Illinois law that dictates when vote-by-mail ballots have to be postmarked and received in order for them to be counted. Changes in state law in 2005 effectively allow a mail-in ballot received up to 14 days after Election Day to be counted as long as it is cast by mail on or before the day of the election. At least 17 states also allow ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted. Bost, who was first elected to Congress in 2014, and two Republican presidential electors sued Illinois election officials over the deadline for counting mail ballots in 2022. They argued in part that the receipt and counting of late-arriving ballots dilutes the value of their votes, infringing on their rights under the First and 14th Amendments, and contended that the ballot-receipt deadline is preempted by two federal statutes that set a uniform day for federal elections. A federal district court dismissed the case in 2023, finding that Bost and the two electors failed to allege that they have the legal right to sue, a concept known as standing. A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the district court's decision last year, agreeing that the plaintiffs did not allege standing to bring their lawsuit because they did not plausibly allege they had been injured by the law involving late-arriving mail ballots. Bost and the electors appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that in recent years, the ability of candidates and parties to sue over state laws that affect their campaigns has been restricted by the federal courts. "The court's guidance is needed to correct the unwarranted narrowing of candidates' ability to challenge electoral regulations," they wrote in a filing with the Supreme Court, adding that it is "vitally important" for the Supreme Court to clarify whether candidates can challenge state election laws in federal court. "It is important that courts hear and resolve well-pleaded challenges by federal candidates to state time, place, and manner regulations affecting their elections," the Republicans wrote. "Aside from the interests of the litigants, it is important that the public conclude that elections are run in an orderly, not arbitrary, fashion." But Illinois election officials urged the Supreme Court to turn away the appeal, arguing that the plaintiffs disagree with their decision to count mail-in ballots that are cast on or before Election Day, but arrive after. "They do not claim that Illinois's ballot receipt deadline affected their likelihood of prevailing in any race in which they have ever competed or are likely to compete in the future," the state officials said in a filing with the high court. "Rather, petitioners contend that they are entitled to challenge the deadline simply by virtue of their status as candidates, on the theory that a political candidate can always challenge a state's regulation of the time, place, and manner of conducting an election."
Epoch Times
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court to Hear Congressman's Challenge to State Ballot-Counting Law
The Supreme Court said on June 2 that it will consider a congressman's challenge to an Illinois law that allows ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day to be counted. A victory for the petitioner, Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.), could open the door to more lawsuits being filed in other states against the late counting of ballots.
