The question
Whether a candidate for office has Article III standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections
What the Court decided
Reversed. The Court held that Congressman Bost, as a candidate for office, has standing to challenge Illinois rules on when mail-in ballots are counted, so the Seventh Circuit was wrong to dismiss for lack of standing. A candidate has a personal stake beyond winning, including an interest in a fair and lawful electoral process, and an unlawful election rule can injure a candidate by causing him to lose, requiring him to spend more resources, or damaging his vote share and reputation. A candidate need not show a substantial risk that a rule will change the outcome or block a legally significant vote threshold to establish standing.
How the justices split
7-2The Court's opinion
Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
A candidate has a personal stake under Article III that extends beyond winning to an interest in a fair and lawful electoral process. An unlawful election rule can injure a candidate by causing a loss, requiring additional resources, or decreasing vote share and damaging reputation, and reputational harm is a recognized Article III injury. A candidate need not show a substantial risk that a rule will be outcome determinative or will prevent reaching a legally significant vote threshold, because such a requirement would push election disputes to the eve of or after an election, when courts should ordinarily not alter election rules.
Concurring in the judgment
Barrett, joined by Kagan
Barrett agreed that the case should be resolved in Bost's favor on standing but did not join the reasoning of the Court's opinion. The syllabus states only that this opinion concurs in the judgment and does not set out its distinct rationale.
Dissenting
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor
Jackson would not find that Bost has standing. The syllabus identifies this as a dissenting opinion but does not set out its specific reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Kagan.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The Court held that Bost, as a candidate, has standing to challenge the rules governing the counting of votes in his election, reversing the Seventh Circuit's dismissal for lack of standing.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that a candidate need not show a substantial risk that a rule will cause a loss or prevent reaching a legally significant vote threshold to have standing.
Source: syllabus, Held