Unofficial Elgin-area election results for council, village board and other races

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

Yahoo

25 minutes ago

Yahoo

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would decide whether Republicans can challenge Illinois' law that allows mail-in election ballots to be counted 14 days after Election Day, following lower federal courts' previous dismissals of the GOP effort. The lawsuit, led by downstate Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, comes as the GOP and President Donald Trump have pushed for the recognition of a singular Election Day ballot count — most recently in a presidential executive order issued in March — despite state laws allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked or voter-signed and certified on or before the election date. In the Illinois case, both the U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Bost and two presidential electors lacked legal standing when they challenged the law in May 2022. The courts did not decide on the merits of the case regarding the legality of post-Election Day ballot counting. But in dismissing the lawsuit in July 2023, U.S. District Judge John Kness also wrote that he thought Illinois' 2015 law complied with the U.S. Constitution as well as federal election law and does 'not conflict with the federal mandate that Election Day be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.' 'By counting only mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, the statute does not extend the day for casting votes in a federal election,' Kness, a Trump appointee, wrote. In a 2-1 decision in August of last year, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court's dismissal due to lack of standing. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization that had worked unsuccessfully with Trump to stop post-Election Day ballot counting in the 2020 presidential race, is representing Bost and appealed last November to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit contended the state law violated the federally established date for federal elections. About 20 states have similar post-Election Day counting laws. But in its appeal to the nation's highest court, Judicial Watch noted a federal appeals court in Louisiana last fall sided with Republicans and ruled Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballot counting after Election Day violated federal law. Bost has argued the counting of 'late, illegal ballots dilutes the value of' lawfully cast votes and infringes upon his right as a federal candidate to stand for office and that he faces added costs for poll watchers post Election Day. Bost has also alleged that post-Election Day votes could reduce his margin of victory and that this 'will lead to the public perception that my constituents have concerns about my job performance' and would 'influence numerous third parties, such as future voters, Congressional leadership, donors and potential political opponents.' Trump has made numerous false, misleading and unsupported claims about mail-in balloting, calling them in his 2020 election loss a 'whole big scam.' But even as he argued against them, the Republican National Committee and the Illinois Republican Party ramped up efforts to get GOP voters to cast ballots by mail. Still, the RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee filed briefs in support of the election law challenge. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, called it 'an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision' that they view illegal. 'The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity,' Fitton said. 'Illinois' 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.' Yet in its appeal, Justice Watch said Bost and the GOP activists 'do not allege voter fraud, nor do they allege that ballots were mailed after Election Day, contrary to Illinois law.' Instead, they allege ballots received after Election Day are illegal and are 'as invalid as if they were received one year after Election Day.' The U.S. Justice Department under President Joe Biden filed briefs in support of the Illinois law, in part because the statute was aimed at ensuring that late arriving votes cast overseas by U.S. military members would be counted. Ironically, Bost, in his sixth House term from Murphysboro, is a Marine veteran who serves as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In a statement, Bost said he was 'thankful' the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the law. 'With the American people's confidence in our elections at a discouraging low point, it's more important than ever we work to restore their trust,' Bost said. 'I believe a big part of that effort is ensuring all votes are tallied by Election Day, not days or weeks later,' he said. 'This is a critical moment for the rule of law and election integrity.'

Chicago Tribune

41 minutes ago

Chicago Tribune

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would decide whether Republicans can challenge Illinois' law that allows mail-in election ballots to be counted 14 days after Election Day, following lower federal courts' previous dismissals of the GOP effort. The lawsuit, led by downstate Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, comes as the GOP and President Donald Trump have pushed for the recognition of a singular Election Day ballot count — most recently in a presidential executive order issued in March — despite state laws allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked or voter-signed and certified on or before the election date. In the Illinois case, both the U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Bost and two presidential electors lacked legal standing when they challenged the law in May 2022. The courts did not decide on the merits of the case regarding the legality of post-Election Day ballot counting. But in dismissing the lawsuit in July 2023, U.S. District Judge John Kness also wrote that he thought Illinois' 2015 law complied with the U.S. Constitution as well as federal election law and does 'not conflict with the federal mandate that Election Day be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.' 'By counting only mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, the statute does not extend the day for casting votes in a federal election,' Kness, a Trump appointee, wrote. In a 2-1 decision in August of last year, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the lower court's dismissal due to lack of standing. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization that had worked unsuccessfully with Trump to stop post-Election Day ballot counting in the 2020 presidential race, is representing Bost and appealed last November to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit contended the state law violated the federally established date for federal elections. About 20 states have similar post-Election Day counting laws. But in its appeal to the nation's highest court, Judicial Watch noted a federal appeals court in Louisiana last fall sided with Republicans and ruled Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballot counting after Election Day violated federal law. Bost has argued the counting of 'late, illegal ballots dilutes the value of' lawfully cast votes and infringes upon his right as a federal candidate to stand for office and that he faces added costs for poll watchers post Election Day. Bost has also alleged that post-Election Day votes could reduce his margin of victory and that this 'will lead to the public perception that my constituents have concerns about my job performance' and would 'influence numerous third parties, such as future voters, Congressional leadership, donors and potential political opponents.' Trump has made numerous false, misleading and unsupported claims about mail-in balloting, calling them in his 2020 election loss a 'whole big scam.' But even as he argued against them, the Republican National Committee and the Illinois Republican Party ramped up efforts to get GOP voters to cast ballots by mail. Still, the RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee filed briefs in support of the election law challenge. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, called it 'an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision' that they view illegal. 'The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity,' Fitton said. 'Illinois' 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.' Yet in its appeal, Justice Watch said Bost and the GOP activists 'do not allege voter fraud, nor do they allege that ballots were mailed after Election Day, contrary to Illinois law.' Instead, they allege ballots received after Election Day are illegal and are 'as invalid as if they were received one year after Election Day.' The U.S. Justice Department under President Joe Biden filed briefs in support of the Illinois law, in part because the statute was aimed at ensuring that late arriving votes cast overseas by U.S. military members would be counted. Ironically, Bost, in his sixth House term from Murphysboro, is a Marine veteran who serves as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. In a statement, Bost said he was 'thankful' the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the law. 'With the American people's confidence in our elections at a discouraging low point, it's more important than ever we work to restore their trust,' Bost said. 'I believe a big part of that effort is ensuring all votes are tallied by Election Day, not days or weeks later,' he said. 'This is a critical moment for the rule of law and election integrity.'

Supreme Court leaves in place firearms laws in Maryland and Rhode Island

Boston Globe

an hour ago

Boston Globe

Supreme Court leaves in place firearms laws in Maryland and Rhode Island

The two other dissenters were Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. Advertisement Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the decision to sidestep the cases for now, but wrote separately to caution against reading too much into Maryland's ban remaining intact. He called the lower court ruling upholding the law 'questionable' and said the Supreme Court should eventually address the validity of bans on assault-style rifles like the AR-15 in the next term or two. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The decision not to take up the gun cases came on the same day the justices decided to hear four other cases for the next term. The Supreme Court will decide on a challenge brought by an Illinois congressman and two Republican presidential electors who say a state law that allows for the collection and counting of absentee ballots after Election Day violates federal election statutes. Advertisement In another case, a US Army specialist who was seriously wounded by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan is asking the Supreme Court to rule that federal contractors do not have immunity from civil suits filed under state law. Winston Hencely sued Fluor Corp., a military contractor, after an Afghan man the company had hired at the Bagram air base built an explosive vest while unsupervised and then detonated it, gravely wounding Hencely. The justices will also hear a case involving a class-action lawsuit brought by migrants who claim they were forced to do work for little or no pay while being held at a private detention facility in Aurora, Colo., in violation of a state law against forced labor. The case concerns a technical question about the contractor's claim that it has sovereign immunity from being sued. In the fourth case, the justices will examine what standards must be met for law enforcement officers to enter a home without a search warrant when they believe an emergency might be occurring inside, in a case originating in Montana. The courts have split over whether probable cause - or a lesser standard - is required in such circumstances. Maryland passed its ban on high-powered rifles in response to the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, in which an AR-15 was used to kill 20 children and six adults. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland's restrictions as consistent with the Second Amendment. 'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal well-being,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in an opinion that repeatedly cited the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller declaring a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. Advertisement In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded gun rights in its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that required the government for the first time to point to historical analogues when defending laws that place restrictions on guns. Earlier this term, the Supreme Court also upheld a Biden-era ban on ghost guns. Gun rights groups challenging Maryland's law noted that AR-15s and other assault-style rifles are the best-selling rifles in the country, owned by millions of Americans and accounting for about 20 percent of all firearms sales in the country for more than a decade. They urged the Supreme Court 'to ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense.' Lower courts, they added, are asking the justices for further guidance about how to apply the Supreme Court's new test. Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, Democrat, whose office defended the ban, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's action Monday means 'a critical law that prevents senseless and preventable deaths will remain in effect,' adding that his office will 'do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence.' The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups challenging the ban, expressed frustration in a statement that the Supreme Court 'continues to allow lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right' and urged Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, to join the group in 'loudly encouraging the Court to take up quality Second Amendment cases.' Advertisement In the Rhode Island case, an appeals court upheld the state's ban on high-capacity magazines, finding that it does not impose a significant burden on residents seeking to defend themselves. 'Civilian self-defense rarely - if ever - calls for the rapid and uninterrupted discharge of many shots, much less more than ten,' the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said in its ruling. The appeals court said the law is consistent with the state's ban on other items 'associated with criminal activity,' such as silencers and armor-piercing bullets. The law, passed in response to the rise in mass shootings, gives owners 180 days to comply by modifying their magazines, selling them to firearms dealers, removing them from the state, or turning them over to law enforcement. The justices also declined to take the case of a Texas stripper who sued two clubs, claiming they discriminated against Black dancers. Chanel Nicholson, who is Black, says she was turned away from work on occasions because managers felt there were already too many Black dancers working. A federal judge and then an appeals court ruled for the clubs, determining that the statute of limitations had expired on her claims. The first acts of alleged discrimination occurred in 2014 but continued off and on until she filed her legal claim in 2021. The appeals court found 'her denial of access to the club … on account of her race' in 2021 was 'merely a continued effect of the first alleged discriminatory act that took place in 2014.' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's decision not to take the case, saying each new act of discrimination starts a new clock to file a civil action. Advertisement

Unofficial Elgin-area election results for council, village board and other races

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

Supreme Court leaves in place firearms laws in Maryland and Rhode Island

Unofficial Elgin-area election results for council, village board and other races

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

US Supreme Court to hear arguments on whether challenge to Illinois mail-in voting law can proceed

Supreme Court leaves in place firearms laws in Maryland and Rhode Island

Get Started Now: Download the App