In a significant victory for Republicans seeking to curb mail-in voting, the Supreme Court has given new life to a challenge from Illinois Representative Mike Bost's (R-Ill.) efforts to count late-arriving mail ballots. The court ruled 7-2 that candidates like Bost have the right to dispute the counting of such ballots, even if it doesn't significantly impact the outcome.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that "win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law." The decision reverses lower court rulings that dismissed the case, but stops short of resolving the underlying claims. Instead, the high court has set a hearing on the broader issue of late-arriving mail ballots this spring.
The controversy centers around Illinois' law, which allows postmarked ballots to be counted if they are received up to two weeks after Election Day. While more than a dozen states have adopted similar policies, allowing ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to still be counted even if they arrive later, the Trump administration has long expressed concerns about late-arriving mail-in votes and drawn-out electoral counts.
Bost's case drew support from former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly voiced his skepticism about mail-in voting. The Republican president has maintained that such practices erode confidence in elections. In contrast, two justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, agreed with the outcome but would have taken a narrower approach to the issue.
The decision's impact is likely to be felt beyond Illinois, with the court's broader hearing on late-arriving mail ballots set for this spring providing an opportunity to address the contentious issue once more.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that "win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law." The decision reverses lower court rulings that dismissed the case, but stops short of resolving the underlying claims. Instead, the high court has set a hearing on the broader issue of late-arriving mail ballots this spring.
The controversy centers around Illinois' law, which allows postmarked ballots to be counted if they are received up to two weeks after Election Day. While more than a dozen states have adopted similar policies, allowing ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to still be counted even if they arrive later, the Trump administration has long expressed concerns about late-arriving mail-in votes and drawn-out electoral counts.
Bost's case drew support from former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly voiced his skepticism about mail-in voting. The Republican president has maintained that such practices erode confidence in elections. In contrast, two justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, agreed with the outcome but would have taken a narrower approach to the issue.
The decision's impact is likely to be felt beyond Illinois, with the court's broader hearing on late-arriving mail ballots set for this spring providing an opportunity to address the contentious issue once more.
This decision by the Supreme Court could lead to changes in how elections are run across the US 
. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not, tbh 
. On one hand, candidates do have a right to challenge the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, which is fair 
. But on the other hand, it could lead to more voter disenfranchisement 
, especially if some ballots are thrown out. The fact that it's being taken up by the court again this spring will be interesting to watch 
.
The Supreme Court is essentially giving the green light for candidates to challenge every little thing, which can lead to chaos at the polls. And what's up with the Trump admin's influence on this case? It's like they're trying to shape public opinion rather than letting the courts make a decision based on facts. 
The bigger question is, where will all these challenges end? It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out... 
anyway, gotta keep an eye on how this plays out, especially with the spring hearing... might be interesting to see what changes come out of it 
.
.
.
just saw that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rep Mike Bost's efforts to dispute late-arriving mail ballots 
... honestly, it feels like a step back for democracy 
... what's next, folks? 
but at the same time i can see both sides of it like when u're trying to decide whether to get that new dessert or not should u splurge now or save ur money for later 
maybe they can find a middle ground like a compromise on the timeline or something? 
! So, the Supreme Court is basically saying that candidates can dispute mail-in voting if they think it doesn't follow the rules 
Sounds like he's saying the law shouldn't change just because someone might win or lose in an election. But, I guess that's a good point too 
. And omg, Donald Trump actually supported Mike Bost's case?! That's wild 
. Maybe the court's hearing in spring will give us some clarity on this whole mail-in voting thing 
.
It's also interesting that former President Trump got behind Bost's case - it just goes to show you how polarized we've gotten on this issue... 
. What if someone disputes a perfectly valid ballot? The whole system is at risk 
. I'm not sure what's more concerning - the fact that this court decision gives power to candidates or that it could lead to delays in our democracy 
. Time will tell how this plays out, but for now, it feels like we're stuck in a cycle of voting rights battles 
but idk how this affects other states... and what about those 13+ states that already have similar laws i'm kinda low-key worried we'll see some major back-and-forth on this one 
... or is it? i mean, we finally got a clarification on those late-arriving mail-in votes and all that jazz 
. this ruling does kinda give those with an agenda a way to potentially influence the outcome of elections. just saying 
...
, but come on, it's like they're trying to make things harder than they need to be 
.
, but it's like they're just kicking the can down the road 
. When do we get to see some real change? 
I want to know that my vote is going to count, not just because of some new law or rule 
Not all this back-and-forth about when it arrives 
. Until then, I'll just keep on keeping on and hoping that change comes soon 
. The Trump administration's long-standing concerns about mail-in voting feel like a red herring, and I worry that this ruling will embolden those who seek to suppress votes from certain groups 
.
.
but anyway... I think its wild that the SC is weighing in on this mail-in voting thing again... like, I get it, there's gotta be rules and all, but can't we just trust our voters to do the right thing? 