Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶72

Alarmingly, today's ruling also has far-reaching implications beyond Bost's election, since dispensing with our usual standing requirements opens the foodgates to exactly the type of troubling election-related litigation the Court purportedly wants to avoid. For example, under the Court's new harm-free candidate-standing rule, an electoral candidate who loses in a landslide can apparently still file a disruptive legal action in federal court after the election is over. All he must do is assert that an election rule somehow deprived him of a fair process—even if that rule played no role in the election's outcome or otherwise caused him harm. That possibility is especially concerning given the host of election-related regulations that States must promulgate when exercising their constitutional duty to set the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections.” Art. I, § 4, cl. 1. States…

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