Latest news with #electionlaw
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case threatening ballots mailed by Election Day, but received later
Jun. 2—The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a case against mail-in ballots in Illinois that may affect Washington. The case was brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Illinois, who sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022. According to the New York Times, Bost and two federal electors argued that the state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted 14 days after an election violates statutes that created an Election Day. Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton said Washington state could be affected by the ruling in this case as ballots that are postmarked by Election Day or before are accepted 10, 14 and sometimes 21 days after Election Day, depending on the election. "It would disenfranchise voters," Dalton said. "It may have a pretty significant impact on our operations." Both federal courts that previously heard Bost's case, a federal district court in Illinois and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed it, agreeing that it lacked standing as Bost couldn't prove that the state laws directly injured him. Dalton said if the Supreme Court case agrees with Bost, the change could affect voter turnout. Oregon also has a universal vote-by-mail system, but requires mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. In the 2024 general election, Washington had a voter turnout of around 79%. In Oregon's general election of the same year, about 75% of voters cast ballots. According to a 2024 study from the University of Chicago, universal vote-by-mail programs tend to increase voter turnout by around 2 to 4 percentage points. Dalton said that accepting the postmarked ballots later is helpful for both the voter and the election office as it gives them more time to process each ballot. "Lots of people wait until the last minute because we're humans and humans procrastinate to a great extent," Dalton said. Despite the increase in voter turnout, late mail-in ballots are often challenged in the aftermath of President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election where he called the later-arriving votes fraudulent. The Spokane County Republican Party last year adopted a platform calling for an end to mail-in voting as well as a return to hand-counting all ballots. State Reps. Mike Volz and Jenny Graham were among Republican legislators who backed a bill this year to bring back in-person voting and eliminate mail-in voting for non-absentee voters. The bill didn't receive a hearing. The Supreme Court case is on the docket for the next term beginning in October. If any changes happen in the months following, Dalton said the county's first steps would be to await orders from the Secretary of State Steve Hobbs.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Legal challenges facing South Korea's incoming President Lee Jae-myung
SEOUL, June 4 (Reuters) - South Koreans voted in Lee Jae-myung as their next president in the country's June 3 snap election to heal the wounds of a shock martial law declaration in December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five different criminal trials. Democratic Party leader Lee has denied wrongdoing and while a president has immunity from most crimes, legal experts are unclear whether this applies to cases that started before they took office. Here are some aspects of the trials the president is involved in. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court after overturning an earlier ruling clearing him. The Seoul High Court decided to schedule its reconsideration of the case for June 18, pushing back a ruling that could determine his eligibility to run until after the election. Violation of election law had been in the spotlight because if the appeals court finalises a guilty verdict in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years. The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from Lee's Democratic Party, which controls parliament, leading to bills being introduced that suggested the court and its chief justice engaged in abuse of jurisdiction and interference in the presidential election. This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Lee's 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam City bordering Seoul's wealthy Gangnam district. A major portion of the trial involves Lee allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won ($1.08 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city. The trial at Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to the Yonhap News Agency. A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election. These two trials are ongoing at Suwon District Court, south of Seoul. In one, prosecutors alleged that Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province in 2018-2021, including parking an official car at his home and letting his wife use it regardless of the errand, plus purchases of food and payment for personal laundry with provincial funds. In another, prosecutors alleged that Lee was an accomplice in a former Gyeonggi province vice governor's involvement in handing over money to North Korea in 2018, and indicted him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, as well as bribery of a third party. A case is also before the Seoul High Court, in which prosecutors alleged Lee induced a witness to lie under oath in court concerning another case in 2019 in which he was cleared. A lower court had cleared Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed. The fate of the trials is unclear. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The Democratic Party introduced to committee in May a bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president. However, some legal experts have noted the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, which would increase political uncertainties. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where the trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. ($1 = 1,382.6800 won)
New York Times
4 days ago
- General
- New York Times
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Illinois Mail-In Ballot Law
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear a case brought by a conservative congressman who had challenged an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after an election. Representative Mike Bost, a Republican who represents a district in downstate Illinois, along with two federal electors, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022. They argue that the state's law violates federal statutes establishing an Election Day because it allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the election. Republicans have repeatedly challenged state laws that allow ballots sent by mail to be counted after Election Day, an issue that President Trump pressed after his loss in the 2020 election, in which the use of mail balloting expanded because of the coronavirus pandemic. A federal trial court had dismissed the case, finding that Mr. Bost and the electors lacked standing, meaning that they were not able to show they were directly injured by the state law. A federal appeals court agreed. Mr. Bost, who is represented by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, asked the justices to weigh in. The election law dispute is one of four new cases that the justices agreed on Monday to add to their docket for next term. The others include a case about whether immigrant detainees can sue a private detention company that they accuse of forcing them to perform labor; a Montana case about when law enforcement officers may enter a home without a search warrant if they believe an emergency is underway; and a dispute over whether a U.S. soldier injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan can sue the government contractor who had employed the bomber. The justices had already agreed to hear another high-profile dispute during their upcoming term, which will begin the first Monday in October — a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits conversion therapy intended to change a minor's gender identity or sexual orientation. The justices will likely add more cases in the coming weeks as they wrap up their current term. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
4 days ago
- 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."
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
What is the president's role in federal elections?
President Trump continues to talk about his role in changing how federal elections are conducted. But did the founders intend for the executive to get involved in the process? CBS News election law expert and political contributor David Becker explains.
