Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶38
I cannot join the Court's creation of a bespoke standing rule for candidates. Elections are important, but so are many things in life. We have always held candidates to the same standards as any other litigant. See, e. g., Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 554 U. S. 724, 733–734 (2008) (applying ordinary standing analysis to candidate challenging financial disclosure requirements); Wittman v. Personhu ballah, 578 U. S. 539, 545 (2016) (applying ordinary standing analysis to legislators running for reelection who challenged redistricting plan); Carney, 592 U. S., at 59–60 (requiring a would-be candidate to show concrete intention to seek office to challenge partisan-balance rule). And we have repeatedly rejected requests to create special standing rules for particular litigants. See, e. g., Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 821, 830 (1997) (legislator standing); Arizona Christian School…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.