Judicial Watch: Supreme Court Will Hear Judicial Watch Case on Election Law Challenge

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear its appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, challenging an Illinois law extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law (Rep.Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)). The lower courts had denied that Bost had standing to challenge Illinois’ practice of counting ballots received after Election Day. (The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022.)

“It is an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks AFTER Election Day,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity. Illinois’ 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.”

Federal law defines Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even-numbered year. The complaint states: “Despite Congress’ clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote-by-mail ballots.” The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently ruled in another Judicial Watch lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, that counting ballots received after Election Day is unlawful.

Illinois’ election law allows vote-by-mail ballots received up to 14 days after the polls close on Election Day to be counted as if they were cast and received on or before Election Day. The lawsuit notes that “[e]ven vote-by-mail ballots without postmarks shall be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after Election Day if the ballots are dated on or before Election Day.” A Seventh Circuit panel found that Congressman Bost had no standing to challenge the provision, despite the increased costs and injuries to his federal candidacy caused by the two-week counting of ballots arriving after Election Day.

In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judicial Watch stated:

For over 130 years, this Court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place, or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Indeed, “it’s hard to imagine anyone who has a more particularized injury than the candidate has.” … That is because a candidate who “pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail, and who puts her name on a ballot has an undeniably different— and more particularized—interest in the lawfulness of the election” than “some random voter.”

***

Petitioners are a sitting multi-term Congressman and two federal electors. They challenged an Illinois law … that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the day specified in federal statutes for holding federal elections … They contend that Illinois’ Receipt Deadline is preempted by the federal Election Day statutes.

***

This petition presents an opportunity for the Court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidate standing, outside of the high-stakes, emergency, post-election litigation where these issues commonly arise.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

Christine Svenson, Esq., of Svenson Law Offices in Palatine, Illinois, is assisting Judicial Watch with the lawsuit.

In April 2025, Judicial Watch announced that its analysis and use of voter registration lists has led to lawsuits and legal actions under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) that have resulted in the removal of five million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities over the last several years.

In March 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear its previous ruling in which it agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day.

Judicial Watch in March 2025 filed a federal lawsuit against California on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond the date established by federal law. California counts ballots received up to seven days after Election Day.

Also in March, Judicial Watch sent a notice letter to Lt. Governor Deidre M. Henderson, notifying her that Utah is currently in violation of the NVRA’s public disclosure requirements. The notice letter warns of a lawsuit after 90 days if the issues are not resolved.

In October 2024, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Constitution Party of Oregon and two lawfully registered voters of Umatilla County and Marion County, Oregon, against Lavonne Griffin-Valade in her official capacity as Oregon Secretary of State and the State of Oregon, to make “a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters” from the voter rolls as required by the NVRA.

In May 2024, Judicial Watch sued California to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California, similarly asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort” to remove ineligible registrants from the rolls as required by federal law.

In July 2024, Judicial Watch asked a federal court to reject the State of Illinois’ motion to dismiss Judicial Watch’s  lawsuit to compel the state to clean up its voter rolls. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of Judicial Watch, the nonprofit organizations Illinois Family Action and Breakthrough Ideas, and Carol J. Davis, a lawfully registered Illinois voter.

###

The post Judicial Watch: Supreme Court Will Hear Judicial Watch Case on Election Law Challenge appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org/scotus-election-law-challenge/