Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶23

Adding monetary harm to the equation, as the concurrence proposes, would change none of this. Post, at 84–85 (Barrett, J., concurring in judgment). Plaintiffs cannot “manufacture standing by voluntarily” incurring costs. Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U. S. 289, 297 (2022). They must incur those costs to “mitigate or avoid” a “ `substantial risk' ” of some independent harm. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013). Acknowledging as much, the concurrence ultimately speculates that it is “reasonably probable” Congressman Bost's election will be at risk because of discrepancies in late-arriving ballots. Post, at 85. Such conjecture—beyond finding little support in the pleadings—carries all the concerns we have explained. And the concurrence's approach introduces a new one: Apparently, a candidate who pays poll watchers a penny would have standing,…

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