Supreme Court to consider reviving GOP challenge to Illinois mail ballot deadline
Lower courts ruled Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of President Trump's 2020 electors from the state had no legal standing to bring their lawsuit.
More than a dozen states allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day so long as they were postmarked or certified by the time polls close, and Republicans have looked to demolish the practice in court.
The legality of the practice is not yet before the Supreme Court, but the new case enables the justices to weigh in on who is able to bring such lawsuits.
The case will be considered during the court's next annual term, which begins in October. Oral arguments are likely to be held late this year.
Bost, who represents Southern Illinois and chairs the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, sued in May 2022 alongside Laura Pollatrini and Susan Sweeney, who served as some of Trump's presidential electors in the state in 2020.
A Trump-appointed federal district judge ruled they can't claim legal standing by asserting they face injury as voters and political candidates. The judge ruled their case failed to state a legally viable claim, anyway.
A panel on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, agreeing that the plaintiffs had no standing.
In their petition to the high court, Bost and the two electors said the decision disrupts a long line of cases enabling federal political candidates to challenge election regulations.
'In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, however, for a variety of reasons, courts have limited candidates' ability to challenge the electoral rules governing their campaigns. This case presents the latest—and an extreme—example of this trend,' their attorneys wrote.
The plaintiffs are represented by Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for unearthing government records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Illinois's election board, represented by the state attorney general's office, urged the justices to turn away the case, saying the lower court was merely applying settled precedent.
'The case presents no sufficiently important—or even sufficiently discrete—legal question warranting the Court's review, it does not conflict with this Court's opinions, and it does not implicate a division of authority among lower courts. The petition should be denied,' the state wrote in court filings.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump backed a scramble to redraw congressional seats in Texas. Michigan ‘not engaging'
Michigan is a political battleground, but the state will likely stay out of the redistricting war threatening to upend the congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm election. In fact, Michigan's swing state status has yielded divided state government, essentially taking it out of a fight in which one-party rule is a kind of precondition for participation. The process of drawing new voting districts typically happens once every ten years following the decennial census. But a mid-decade redistricting shake-up began when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, called a special legislative session to redraw congressional districts in his state. President Donald Trump has expressed his hope that new lines will allow Republicans to pick up five more seats for Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has moved ahead with a plan to suspend the map drawn by his state's independent redistricting commission to ask voters to adopt lines that favor Democrats. Michigan has a redistricting commission similar to the one in California. Independent redistricting advocates have railed against politically skewed voting districts designed to benefit one political party, describing such gerrymandering as a way to distort election outcomes by letting politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. In Michigan, voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 that wrested control of the redistricting process from lawmakers and put the pen in the hands of a group of randomly selected voters charged with drawing fair maps. Several factors mean Michigan is all but guaranteed to stay on the sidelines of the battle to control Congress by changing the map: legal safeguards protecting Michigan's citizen-led redistricting process, the partisan makeup of the state's Legislature, election timelines and a general disinterest among politicians to interfere. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she has no interest in redrawing the lines. "We're not changing any maps in Michigan," she told reporters Aug. 20. "What's going on in Texas I think is an affront to democracy, and so it's understandable that you've got other states starting to have similar conversations about what's possible. We're not engaging in that here in Michigan." While the leaders of both major political parties in the state may not agree on much, they have one thing in common: neither is clamoring to see a new congressional map put in place before the 2030 census triggers the next redistricting cycle. Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel condemned Texas Republicans' redistricting push as a power grab and applauded Democratic governors for trying to fight the map with their own efforts to change their state's congressional districts. But Hertel said he's not calling on Michigan Democrats to try to follow in their footsteps, and he expressed pride in the redistricting process approved by Michigan voters to create fair maps. "I don't want to go back," he said. It also wasn't top of mind for Michigan GOP Chair state Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, who said he wanted to do more research on the redistricting fight playing out in Texas before commenting. In a follow-up call, Runestad characterized Newsom's redistricting push as a partisan endeavor in contrast to Texas, where he said lawmakers seemed to be focused on addressing concerns the U.S. Department of Justice raised about how their congressional map divided voters of color into different voting districts. Critics have characterized the department's allegations as a kind of pretext for partisan gerrymandering in Texas. Even if Michigan politicians wanted to try to take back control of the redistricting process now, they would have a steep hill to climb. Changing the process in Michigan would require an amendment to the state's constitution. With the support of two-thirds of members in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature, lawmakers could put forward a constitutional amendment asking voters to change the redistricting process again. But Michigan Democrats control the Michigan Senate while Republicans control the Michigan House, a composition that makes it highly unlikely lawmakers would come together across party lines to agree to such an amendment. Michigan voters could also propose a constitutional amendment, but no campaign has emerged to put redistricting back on the ballot to ask voters to essentially dismantle the redistricting process that they put in place. Even if it did, voters wouldn't have a chance to take it up until the November 2026 election. Christy McGillivray, who serves as executive director of Voters Not Politicians, which spearheaded the anti-gerrymandering campaign in Michigan, said she has faith that Michigan voters want to stick with a citizen-led, independent redistricting process, saying fairness is a principle that brings them together despite their political differences. "They're even-keeled and the current hyper-partisanship coming from the federal government doesn't reflect the majority of Michiganders. It really doesn't," she said. Like California and Texas, many of the other states that could become entangled in the mid-decade redistricting war are solidly Republican or solidly Democratic states. Michigan, meanwhile, has a competitive political geography. More: Mayor Mike Duggan, Chief Todd Bettison laud feds for helping decrease crime in Detroit The state's congressional map features some of the most highly contested districts in the U.S. Political operatives see a path to gerrymander Michigan voting districts to favor one political party. "It would be easy to do," said Jeff Timmer, the former Michigan GOP executive director who helped draw voting districts to favor Republicans before voters put an independent redistricting process in place. But Timmer also said that the state's map creates some obstacles to such an attempt. Someone could draw a map that makes the state's competitive congressional districts slightly more Republican- or Democratic-leaning, but he likened that to stepping on a balloon. For instance, a mapper couldn't make a competitive seat in Oakland County and still have one in Macomb County, Timmer said. An attempt to gerrymander wouldn't provide the "clear, decisive, slam dunk" for partisans in Michigan like it does in California or Texas, he said. Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@ or 313-296-5743. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan set to avoid mid-decade congressional map redraw
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats alarmed over new data showing voters fleeing to GOP
Democrats are sounding the alarm on new data showing they are losing voters to Republicans across the country. A devastating New York Times report Wednesday showed that of the 30 states that maintain voter registration records by political party, Democrats fell behind Republicans in all of them between the 2020 and 2024 elections. In total, Republicans added up to 4.5 million voters compared to Democrats, creating a huge hold that could set Democrats back for years. 'I think it should be an alarm' for the Democratic Party, said party strategist Eddie Vale. 'I think it's a real problem.' The new data comes as Democrats struggle to figure out how to get out of the political wilderness after losing the presidency to Donald Trump and control of both chambers of Congress to the GOP. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has found traction with attacks on Trump, mimicking the president on social media and energizing many in his party. But the Democratic brand itself has taken a number of big hits, and The New York Times data is just the latest point suggesting the party has lost its way. Vale noted that a span of voters, including people of different races and ages, were abandoning the party, according to the Times reporting. He said his worry is that all of these different kinds of voters feel like the Democratic Party left them. They 'all shared the broader fact that they are working class and not feeling like we were talking to them or actually going to help them, so that needs to be fixed,' he said. Another Democratic strategist found the report disheartening at a time when Democrats are feeling rudderless and leaderless and lacking a coherent message for voters. 'Two things need to happen for Trump's political movement to fail: Trump and MAGA popularity plummets and Democrats' brand popularity rises,' the strategist said. 'The former is happening but not the latter.' 'You have to have something clear to offer an alternative vision,' the strategist added. 'The voter registration lag is directly related to this because the Democratic brand is flat. It's one of the reasons why the most successful Democrats in this environment run against both parties.' Democrats have been feeling dejected since their devastating defeat in November, when they lost control of not just the presidency but the House and the Senate, which they had previously controlled. Recent polls show that Democrats view their party as weak. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll in July revealed that about 1 in 5 Democrats described their party in a positive light. And a poll by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country obtained by The Hill last month showed that voters perceived the Democratic Party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' The struggle to connect with voters has been a running theme for months, with even Democrats acknowledging that they have yet to put forward a compelling message. A Wall Street Journal poll out late last month showed Democrats' popularity had hit the lowest point in 35 years, as 63 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of the party. At the same time, 33 percent of those surveyed held a favorable view. The drop in voter registration for Democrats 'matches what we see in the polls,' said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who does not support Trump. 'People are unsatisfied with what the Democrats are offering.' 'It shows how Democrats took things for granted and got out-hustled by Republicans, and I don't say that with glee or anything else,' Del Percio added. 'But the numbers are there, and this is proof in the pudding.' A major Democratic donor was more scathing: 'Our party sucks. Our leadership sucks. Our message sucks. Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?' 'We're completely out of touch,' the donor said. Democrats also say they are aware of voters' perceptions and views of the party and have sought to make inroads with key demographics that have strayed from their party. They have been conducting a series of postmortems and focus groups in an effort to win the voters back. Steve Schale, the veteran Democratic strategist, said the only voter registration that has 'really moved the needle in the last 20 years has been centered around the party and candidates' and that Democrats should return to that model. 'Not only does party-based voter registration accomplish the rote goal of registering voters, it also requires the kind of outreach in key communities that we have long rightly been criticized for abandoning,' Schale said. 'But to this, donors have to be willing to support the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and state parties.' 'It won't happen on its own,' Schale added. At the same time, Vale cautioned that the Democratic Party should not simply mend what's broken. They have to be forward-looking. 'We need to make sure that while we fix it we don't only fight the last war and not be attuned to things possibly changing again,' Vale said. 'Because we have already seen in a lot of polling that younger people, Latino and African American men are souring on Trump and that can be something that can be the leading edge of winning them back registration-wise.' In the end, Democratic strategist Anthony Coley said, the numbers amount to trust with voters and 'a larger problem with the Democratic brand.' 'Voters have run away from the party for a variety of reasons but trust — or the lack of it — tops the list,' Coley said. 'Too many voters just don't trust the Democratic Party to deliver on issues they care about.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Memo: Trump ignites new culture war battle over the Smithsonian — and slavery
President Trump has plunged once more into the nation's cultural wars — this time with Washington's famous Smithsonian Institution in his sights. As is often the case, the manner of Trump's attack risks significant blowback, even as it delights his fans. Specifically, in a social media blast about how 'OUT OF CONTROL' the Smithsonian allegedly is, Trump contended that its exhibits were excessively focused on 'how bad Slavery was.' Whether that sentiment was clumsily phrased or fully intentional, it ignited a storm because of the implication that slavery was somehow not quite as bad as commonly portrayed. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — a potential 2028 presidential candidate who has adopted an ever more combative social media stance against Trump in recent weeks — contended that the president was 'trying to ERASE slavery from U.S. history.' Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) blasted Trump's comment as 'outrageous and un-American' and further argued, 'If Trump thinks slavery wasn't bad, he clearly needs to spend more time in a museum.' Media commentators expressed their own criticisms. CNN 'Newsnight' anchor Abby Phillip began her show on Tuesday with a monologue in which she noted, 'It's important to say, objectively, slavery was indeed bad. It was evil — the nation's original sin. And it is impossible to understand the true history of this country without fully grappling with slavery's impact.' It would be naive to imagine that one more Trump controversy will do anything to fundamentally change his political fortunes. Trump has peppered the national discourse with inflammatory remarks since he descended the Trump Tower escalator to launch his first campaign a decade ago, accusing Mexico of sending 'rapists' across the southern border. Still, his propensity to ignite new fights, often on some of the most sensitive issues of American life, surely contributes to popularity ratings that are, overall, mediocre — despite the ferocious loyalty of his base. Even as his supporters laud the changes he has wrought in the first seven months of his second term, recent polls have shown most Americans disapproving of his job performance. A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll put Trump 14 points underwater, with 54 percent of survey respondents disapproving and 40 percent approving. An Economist/YouGov poll indicated his net rating was even worse, 16 points in the negative. Trump's ratings when it comes to personal attributes also reflect broad distaste for his approach. A second Economist poll earlier this month asked Americans if they liked Trump as a person, regardless of whether or not they agree with his policies. Just 33 percent of respondents said they liked him. Forty-eight percent said they disliked him — including almost 1 in 5 self-described conservatives. That being said, there is obviously a political market for what Trump is selling, especially among culturally conservative Americans who feel alienated by society's liberal shifts in recent decades. He notably placed his attack on the Smithsonian within the framework of the institution allegedly being excessively 'woke'— and insufficiently patriotic. Despite the nebulousness over what 'wokeness' actually is, Trump has used similar charges against leading universities. Those attacks have drawn much media comment, but it's unclear they have sparked commensurate public outrage. A number of elite institutions have sought some form of accommodation with him. In Trump's case, it's also often hard to distinguish between 'culture war' rhetoric and substantive policy. The former seems to drive the latter in his case, to an unusual extent. There are subjects on which this plays to his political advantage — the most obvious being immigration, where he has spoken frequently about an 'invasion' that can only be repelled by his hawkish policies. During last year's election campaign, immigration was consistently Trump's strongest issue — a finding that suggests his language on the issue resonates widely, even as it appalls critics. He has, more recently, used similarly emotive language as he seeks to justify his deployment of the National Guard and other federal law enforcement agencies in Washington, D.C., as well as his takeover of the city's police department. In that instance, Trump has contended that 'the Democrat Government of D.C. has largely stopped investigating, arresting, and prosecuting most crime,' and has spoken of a crime emergency, despite declining violent crime rates. He has also promised that his law enforcement takeover will result in the District of Columbia being 'LIBERATED' from 'Crime, Savagery, Filth and Scum.' In this case, however, his words have rung hollow for the vast majority of residents of the District. A Washington Post-Schar School poll of D.C. residents published on Wednesday found 79 percent of those surveyed oppose his federal takeover of the police and his deployment of the guard and FBI. It is, of course, arguable whether Trump's language and actions in relation to Washington are really aimed at meeting the needs of the strongly Democratic city — or about playing to his base in the heartlands by casting the capital in a negative and quasi-subversive light. In the end, there is no plausible possibility that Trump will back off the culture war fights that he has embraced for so long. He can argue that approach has brought him this far — even as it has also fueled the intensity of the opposition to him.
