Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶86

In an ironic twist, the majority correctly rejects Justice Barrett's pocketbook-injury theory analysis due to its speculative nature. It rightly acknowledges that a plaintiff who relies on costs to establish standing “must incur those costs to `mitigate or avoid' a `substantial risk' of some independent harm.” Ante, at 82 (quoting Clapper, 568 U. S., at 414, n. 5). And it recognizes that the independent harm Bost asserts—“discrepancies in late-arriving ballots”— amounts to “conjecture,” with “little support in the pleadings.” Ante, at 82. But rather than follow that observation where it leads, the majority crafts a new candidate-only standing rule, ignoring the patently speculative nature of Bost's harm based on Bost's more generalized “interest in a fair process.” Ante, at 77.

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