Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶17

Respondents and the dissent dismiss these harms, which plainly affect candidates in a “personal and individual way,” as generalized grievances. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 339 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). And they suggest that in order to have standing, plaintiff- candidates must show some substantial risk that a rule will cause them to lose the election, prevent them from achieving a legally significant vote threshold, or damage their reputation or finances. Brief for Respondents 25–26; post, at 95. That approach finds no support in Article III's case or controversy requirement or our case law interpreting that requirement. And it is as practically untenable as it is undemocratic.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.