Today, the Supreme Court ruled that federal candidates can challenge state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted past “Election Day.” They principally contended that doing so conflicts with 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a 7-2 verdict, with two of the court’s liberals dissenting.
In this case, SCOTUS sided with a Republican congressman who challenged an Illinois state requirement that mail-in ballots be counted up to two weeks after Election Day if they were postmarked before the deadline.
Lower courts had ruled against Congressional Rep. Michael Bost, saying he lacked “standing” - or sufficient legal injury - to sue. He had also been joined by two presidential electors trying to challenge the state law.
Bost sued in 2022, claiming that an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day violated federal law that sets a uniform date for federal elections. As in other states, mail-in ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day.
But the justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, said an “unlawful election rule” can harm a candidate for office, posing legal injuries.
“Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have a ’personal stake’ in a case to have standing to sue,” wrote the chief justice. “Congressman Bost has an obvious answer: He is a candidate for office. And a candidate has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.”
“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.”
Justice Ketanji Brown and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that Bost has a potential injury, not an actual one, and that precedent requires individuals to suffer actual harm to bring a lawsuit.
Bost, a former state lawmaker who was first elected to Congress in 2014, represents Illinois’ southernmost congressional district. He won the 2024 election with 74% of the vote.
This is an important topic as 19 states and DC count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Both Republican and Democrat led states have pushed for significant changes to voting rules in recent years, spurring a flurry of lawsuits in federal courts.
Republicans are pursuing litigation in multiple courts, attempting to roll back the expansion of mail-in voting. A federal appeals court in Louisiana last year ruled that Mississippi violated federal law by counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled Unanimously that the date elections officials receive the ballot is all that matters. The mailing date and the postmark are irrelevant. If a ballot hasn’t been received by election day, it’s too late. “Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by Election Day,” Judge Oldham wrote. “And federal law does not permit the State of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days, or 100 days.”
SCOTUS has taken up that case as Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260), granting certiorari on November 10, 2025, agreeing to hear it. Oral arguments are expected in early spring 2026, with a decision anticipated by late June or early July, in time to affect the 2026 midterms.
The case directly addresses whether federal election-day statutes preempt state laws that allow the receipt of timely postmarked ballots after Election Day. A ruling affirming the Fifth Circuit could invalidate similar grace periods in dozens of U.S. states (plus D.C. and territories) that count late-arriving mail ballots. A reversal would uphold such policies.
The issue of ‘When is a ballot timely received for counting in the election?’ is not going away. However, today’s SCOTUS ruling is a significant win for Election Integrity and means candidates have legal standing and can more easily mount legal challenges in future elections.
Share This Post...
