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."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
Jury convicts Wisconsin inmate accused of killing cellmate for being Black and gay
GREEN BAY, Wis. -- A Wisconsin man doing time for trying to kill his mother was convicted Wednesday of strangling his cellmate to death in a hate crime. A jury found Jackson Vogel, 25, guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in connection with the death of 19-year-old Micah Laureano at the Green Bay Correctional Institution last year, WLUK-TV reported. A hate crime enhancement was part of the verdict. His attorneys, public defenders Ann Larson and Luke Harrison, didn't immediately return voicemail messages seeking comment. Vogel faces a mandatory life sentence when he's sentenced on June 27. He is already serving a 20-year prison term handed down in 2018 for repeatedly stabbing his mother, strangling her and attempting to snap her neck, according to an appellate opinion upholding that conviction. A guard found Laureano's body hanging from the top bunk of the cell he shared with Vogel on Aug. 27, according to a criminal complaint. Laureano's hands and feet were tied together with orange material. Vogel, who is white, told the guard that he killed Laureano because Laureano was Black and gay, the complaint said. He said he knocked Laureano out, tied his hands and feet and strangled him. Investigators discovered numerous cut strips of orange cloth around the cell as well as a handwritten note that said, 'Kill all humans!' followed by profanities directed at Black people and gay people, according to the complaint. Laureano was serving a three-year sentence in battery and robbery cases. His mother, Phyllis Laureano, filed a federal lawsuit in February accusing prison officials of failing to protect him from Vogel. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. Green Bay Correctional Institute, a maximum security facility, opened in 1898. Republicans have been calling for years to close the prison along with the Waupun Correctional Institution, another maximum security facility where seven inmates have died since 2023. But concerns over job losses and the cost of building a new prison have stymied any progress on either front.
21 minutes ago
Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trump told ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.
21 minutes ago
Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under bill passed by the state House
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A Democratic-sponsored proposal to limit per-student payments to Pennsylvania's cyber charter schools and make other changes to how they operate narrowly passed the state House on Wednesday over Republican objections that it would imperil the online learning programs. The 104-98 vote, with only two Republicans in favor, sets down a marker on the perennially contentious issue of school funding as state lawmakers work to complete the coming year's state budget for the fiscal year that starts in July. The bill's $8,000 limit on how much public school districts would have to reimburse the cyber charters was the central piece of the sprawling legislation and would be a boost to the districts and the property tax payers who bear much of the cost of public education in Pennsylvania. There currently is no cap for the districts' payments to cyber charters, an amount now linked to how much districts spent on their own students in the prior year. Supporters said changes to the cyber charter rules are widely backed among the state's 500 school boards and that cyber school spending has been the subject of critical reviews, including recently by Republican Auditor General Tim DeFoor. But opponents defended the existing system as a critical lifeline to the students and families that for various reasons have sought alternatives to traditional schools. The bill would set annual tuition payments from school districts to cyber charters at $8,000 per student, with potential yearly increases. Special education funding would also see changes. Cyber charters would not be able to maintain cash balances above 12% of their spending and would not be able to provide payments or gifts to parents as incentives to enroll their children. The bill would bolster disclosure requirements regarding cyber charters' policies, instructional materials and budgets. It would bar the state Education Department from approving any additional cyber charter schools through the 2029-30 school year. A new Cyber Charter School Funding and Policy Council would be set up to make recommendations concerning enrollment, governance and funding. During floor debate Wednesday, Rep. Martina White, a Philadelphia Republican, said the measure will 'close real schools, displace real students, strip families of the very choices that they depend on to give their children a chance at success.' The moratorium would be highly damaging to cyber charters, said Rep. Craig Williams, a Delaware County Republican. 'You limit the number of cyber charters now in existence, you choke off its funding, and eventually you can kill cyber charter. Sixty-plus thousand students in our school system, finding another way to learn, and we're going to choke it off with this bill,' Williams said. The chair of the House Education Committee, Lehigh County Democratic Rep. Peter Schweyer, enumerated cyber charter spending issues raised in the auditor general's report, including staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. 'Gift cards?' Schweyer asked his colleagues. 'We would all get in trouble if we were taking gift cards as part of our compensation.' Leaders of existing public cyber charter schools say the measure would cut their funding by about $450 million or more across the state, with a third of the total reductions targeting special education student reimbursements. A Democratic analysis put the figure at more than $600 million. About 65,000 Pennsylvania students currently attend the state's 14 public cyber charter schools, which are public, nonprofit corporations. They do not have to follow all of the requirements mandated of public schools under state law. Cyber charter school are considered independent public schools, approved to operate with a 'charter' issued by the Education Department. They use technology to provide much of the teaching. Students usually do not need to attend a physical location beyond certain events, such as standardized testing. The proposal was sent over to the Republican majority state Senate for its consideration. The bill becomes part of a wider negotiations to determine the budget before lawmakers recess for the summer.
