A Recent Supreme Court Decision May Finally End Pro-Fraud Election Rules

American Thinker ^ | 20 Jan, 2026 | Jerome R. Corsi

[MtnClimber]

Last Wednesday, January 14, 2026, in a little-noticed Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 7-2 majority opinion in Michael J. Bost et al., Petitioners v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. That case saw Illinois Congressman Michael Bost challenge an Illinois State Board of Elections rule that “requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day.” Remarkably, the decision reversed the trend, which has predominated since 2020, of federal and state courts denying standing to petitioners who argue that state board of election rules facilitate fraud and/or violate federal election laws. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor) objected that the court’s decision would open the floodgates to litigation by political candidates challenging that state board election rules are not written or administered to be fair.

Jackson wrote:

Any litigant who invokes the judicial power of the federal courts under Article III “must establish that he has a ‘personal stake’ in the alleged dispute, and that the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.” ... Today, however, the Court essentially pronounces that this foundational principle no longer applies to candidates for elected office. It declares that all candidates have standing to challenge election regulations in light of their interest in a “fair process.” ... No matter that, in a democratic society like ours, the interest in a fair electoral process is common to all members of the voting public. The Court thus ignores a core constitutional requirement while unnecessarily thrusting the Judiciary into the political arena. [Citations omitted.]

Apparently dropping resistance to court challenges filed by candidates for political office, Chief Justice Roberts saw the issue of standing as simple:

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: couptruth; democrattruth; electionfraud; electiontruth

[MtnClimber]

As long as leftists don't use this to cause chaos in elections.

Rules that undermine the “integrity of the electoral process” also undermine the winner’s political legitimacy. ... The counting of unlawful votes—or discarding of lawful ones—erodes public confidence that the election results reflect the people’s will. - John Roberts

[Freedom4US]

Before the election: - they mail out fraudulent ballots to fraudulent people. “The election hasn’t happened yet. You don’t have standing”. Never mind the candidate, what about the people?

After election day: “It’s too late now to do anything about it”. You don’t have standing there either. Weird, huh?

[Henchster]

"..in a democratic society like ours,.."

If she is so ignorant as to be unaware we are a REPUBLIC, she needs to be impeached and removed.

[ComputerGuy]

I agree with the decision, but Ketanji has a point.

[Phlyer]

As long as leftists don't use this to cause chaos in elections.

Too late. It's already been done. It's been done in every election since Al Gore's "hanging chad" election. It's very clear that they 'cause chaos' until they have manufactured enough votes to "win". Then they declare the election to be over. Unless the courts step in to stop the chaos (see, "Al Gore").

[Phlyer]

You don’t have standing there either.

"Standing" is judge-speak for, "I don't want to have to decide this issue." Roberts seems to be more worried about the reputation of 'his' court than the integrity of the actions of the government. And, as is often the case when one uses a tactic to avoid taking decisive action, he has done more to destroy the reputation of the US court system than any other Chief Justice in history.

There is some faint hope, with this decision and the one limiting nationwide injunctions from a single district judge, that he is finally seeing that his strategy has failed miserably. Perhaps there is still time to recover our nation.

[odawg]

The Constitution stipulates an election DAY, not an election season. How is all this stretching out of election day constitutional?

[DeplorablePaul]

Recall that most of Trump’s 2020 court challenges were dismissed on lack of standing. He spent a billion dollars on the election and has no standing? Only 5 years too late Roberts.

[bray]

This changes everything in challenges. They now have to prove where they got their numbers.

[Bon of Babble]

Ballots allowed to be counted 14 days after Election Day obviously invites fraud.

This allows Democrats to figure out, after preliminary results, how many votes they need to turn over the election to them. This is how red Orange County in California was flipped blue. Republicans who won on election night were unseated two weeks later by these “late ballots” coming in AFTER the election.

Easy to print up ballots, fill them in and then postmark them for the election date.

[Savage Beast]

The end of election fraud will mean the end of the Democrat Party.

[jimtorr]

.......It declares that all candidates have standing to challenge election regulations.....

Just as it was until election 2020.

[sport]

Pro Fraud election Rules will never happen in The United States of America as long as there are a Democrat alive. Fraud and lies are the only way a Democrat can win.

[Secret Agent Man]

Thats what happened in Wisconsin.

[copaliscrossing]

If you haven’t went to the godsfivestones website and read some of the analysis by Andrew Paquette I invite you to do so. There is a LOT of details and documentation there but just scroll down to the conclusion and you will get the gist of how these nefarious Dem operatives are winning these close elections. Hell, they don’t even have to wait until they know how many votes they need as they can seed the voter rolls before the election THEN and only when necessary, get more votes by pushing a button essentially.

So that brings me to my larger point that I have posited here and other places online. We NEED to have a impartial software audit of ALL software involved in voting. From voter registration, voter roll maintenance, vote counting, etc... Until that happens REGULARLY, not just once, we cannot be confident in the results of any election.

[bobbo666]

The case was also inportant in that it concluded that anyone standing for office, regardless of polls, has a stake in the outcome — their future job.

So, politicos have standing — a reversal of Robert’s 2020 decision wherein he turned away 16 states objecting to the violation of the US Const when some states re-wrote election laws.

[Organic Panic]

“the alleged injury suffered is particularized as to him.”

Did she just assume my gender? She’s no biologist!!! What a bigot

[ModelBreaker]

“Chief Justice Roberts saw the issue of standing as simple”

Because it is simple. Standing was just erected as an artificial support pillar for left-wing election rules.

Other than the candidate, who has more at stake in election rules?

[ModelBreaker]

“We NEED to have a impartial software audit of ALL software involved in voting.”

1. All software involved MUST be public source.

2. it must be a felony not to preserve a forensic copy of each voting machine before and after the vote. I would also require a randomly timed forensic copy during the voting process.

3. All forensic copies should be public domain after deidentifying voters.