When a Candidate Sues But Still Wins: The Surprising Case Before the Supreme Court
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a fascinating case from Illinois that raised more eyebrows than answers, as justices across the ideological spectrum seemed unimpressed by both sides. This case challenges Illinois’ voting rules, specifically about how long mail-in ballots can be counted after Election Day, and it sparked some surprisingly candid moments from the usually reserved justices.
Here’s the crux: Representative Michael Bost, a Republican from Illinois, filed a lawsuit claiming that a state election rule is unconstitutional. This rule allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be tallied for up to two weeks after polls close. The lower courts dismissed his challenge because although he lost on the rule’s constitutionality, he actually won the election and thus couldn't prove he was harmed by this regulation.
Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General and Bost’s lawyer, argued that Bost was indeed affected by these extended ballot-counting rules. He said they narrowed Bost’s winning margin and caused him to incur extra expenses by having his team wait around during the prolonged counting period. But Chief Justice John Roberts quickly shot down this reasoning. He bluntly summarized Bost’s case as, “Hi, I’m a candidate; these rules apply to me, and I’m suing.” This raised the question: Is simply being a candidate enough to claim harm?
Justice Elena Kagan, aligning with Roberts' skepticism, seemed unimpressed, and Justice Samuel Alito added some sharp critique. He suggested Bost’s case missed a critical point—many believe such looser vote-counting rules typically disadvantage Republicans while giving Democrats an edge. Why didn’t the complaint emphasize this widespread perception? Justice Sonia Sotomayor piled on, noting that Bost’s brief lacked clear legal grounding and factual support, failing to even follow the court’s typical language.
Things got even more interesting when the justices debated whether even candidates with no real chance of winning should be allowed to sue election rules. Clement made a somewhat humorous yet pointed remark, saying he stood “in locked shoulder” with fringe or minor party candidates like the Socialist Workers Party, who rarely win but might still want to file suits. This sparked a chuckle from Sotomayor and agreement from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who reminded everyone that party’s candidates “had zero chance of winning.”
Then Illinois Solicitor General Jane Notz stepped in, advocating for the state’s position. She warned that, if Bost’s approach were accepted, any candidate could challenge any election rule they simply didn’t like, which could open the floodgates to endless litigation—even over rules that cause no real harm.
But the justices were quick to poke holes in that argument. Chief Justice Roberts warned this stance could lead to “a potential disaster” of countless lawsuits. Justice Alito questioned whether deciding a candidate's legal standing depends on analyzing their experience or chances to win. Gorsuch even remarked on the awkwardness of federal courts guessing a candidate’s odds of success right before elections, calling it "unseemly."
Meanwhile, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to agree that Illinois might be backing off arguments it put forward in its own legal brief—something Kavanaugh tersely acknowledged was the state's prerogative.
And here’s the part most people miss: This case isn’t just about counting votes; it’s about who has the right to challenge election rules in court—and under what conditions. Should every candidate be able to sue just because a rule applies to them? Or should courts weigh a candidate’s chance of winning before hearing their case? This touches on fundamental questions about access to justice and election fairness.
But here’s where it gets controversial: If loosening vote-counting deadlines tends to help one party over another, isn’t there an underlying political agenda influencing these legal battles? Does restricting who can sue risk silencing legitimate grievances from less established candidates?
What do you think? Should the courts allow any candidate to challenge election rules, or should there be limits? Does the current Illinois rule strike the right balance between ensuring every vote counts and preserving election integrity? Share your thoughts—this is a debate worth having.
