Posted on 06/02/2025 9:34:23 AM PDT by bitt
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case involving questions surrounding federal candidate litigation of state election regulations.
Known as Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the case offers the nation’s highest court with the opportunity to provide a definitive ruling on the issue of whether a federal candidate who has demonstrated substantiated factual allegations has standing to challenge state-enacted election laws and rules. As The Federalist previously reported, “Standing has been a contentious issue in election litigation” and was at the “forefront of several prominent lawsuits filed contesting the 2020 presidential election cycle, as well as a case involving a challenge to then-President Biden’s ‘Bidenbucks‘ executive order.”
The decision to grant “cert” in the case means at least four justices agreed to bring the matter before the full court for consideration, as required by SCOTUS rules.
The origins of the Bost case date back to May 2022, when Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two other Republicans identified as presidential elector nominees filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections and the Board’s executive director, Bernadette Matthews. The suit specifically challenged the legality of a state law authorizing the acceptance of voters’ mail-in ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
p
bkmrk to watch later.
Whatever. The SC has proven itself to be a totally worthless and corrupt institution overpopulated with some of the biggest morons on the planet. They understand the law about as well as a dog. They need to be ignored. WTF are they gonna do? Power is only perceived. Call their bluff.
Which way will they go? Will the USSC decide that the constitution means what it says, that Election Day is the first Tuesday of November..........or is that just a guideline? Could they also rule that early voting is not legal?
I never understand the issue with “standing”.
This seems to come up in cases where the government has decided to screw over some citizen, and the citizen says, “That ain’t right” and the court says “You are not allowed to complain. You have no standing.”
To quote Randy Marsh: “I thought this was America!”
Why would any citizen & registered voter in the district impacted not have standing?
The ground game strategy is very important. A candidate or party has a limited number of ground troops who are competent. The longer the voting period, the more important is the ground game.
The shorter the voting period, the more important the TV and internet game.
How will our society change if we never meet anyone in person?
States don’t have standing, citizens don’t have standing, and they’ll decide that candidates don’t have standing… So who the hell does have standing to question on unfair state election law? Or fraudulent election procedures?
It was always a BS dodge. If the cheated candidate does not have standing then no one could.
The standing doctrine is something the courts made up in the first place. It is unconstitutional in that the constitution gives everyone the right to be heard their grievances. It did not exist for many years in our country until some court just made it up.
To: Drew68; BP2How well did that turn out?Interesting.
Before the primaries we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn’t the right time because he wasn’t actually his party’s candidate.Before the main election we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn’t the right time because he wasn’t actually the president elect.Before the electoral college vote we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn’t the right time because he hadn’t actually been elected until the electoral college said so.Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn’t the right time because he hadn’t actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.Before was sworn in we made the case.
Trolls like you said it wasn’t the right time because he hadn’t actually violated the constitution until he became president.Now that he is president, trolls like you say it’s too late, you should have said something sooner!
249 posted on 4/15/2010, 8:40:26 AM by null and void (We are now in day 448 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
I do believe this is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. Though with the current court make-up it is a bit of a toss up on whether they will make the sensible and just ruling.
In that case l would argue every US Citizen had standing because everything a Potus does has effect (and potential damages) on every citizen. The same would hold true for a stolen Presidential election.
"SCOTUS Agrees To Decide Case On Candidates’ Standing To Challenge Election Laws"
Questioning the standing of candidates running for office is arguably a diversion with respect to resolving alleged MAJOR constitutional voting integrity problems (imo) related to the unconstitutionally big federal government.
The main evidence with understanding MAJOR constitutional voting integrity problems begins with wising up about the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification political parties who are not about to let go of their ongoing abuse of 16th Amendment powers (direct taxes), that amendment the pot of gold for organized crime imo.
It's not surprising that the article doesn't mention ongoing state non-compliance with 12th Amendment electoral vote rules for example. Nor does it mention Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, that amendment a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred.
In fact, consider that the zero tolerance "hair trigger" wording in that section that should be a warning for any state thinking about rigging an election, letting non-citizens vote just one example of doing so imo.
Excerpted from 14A:
"But when the right to vote at any election"
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, consider that the post-Civil War congressional Republicans who drafted Section 2 made it to discourage Southern Democrats (my words) from rigging the ballot boxes that Democrats are now alleged to have done for 2020, 2022 and possibly earlier elections!
"Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment. This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as such states continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote." —Apportionment of Representatives
And this is why you ain’t a lawyer or judge!
(Lack of) “Standing” was used to reject almost ALL of the 2020 cases: Not a lawyer, not a law firm, not an independent group, not a dependent group, not the voters in that precinct, in that county, in that city, in that state, in other states, in other planets and other dimensions.
Not even other elected legislature MEMBERS in that state, in that county, in that country! Not other DA’s, or governors, that state’s OWN governor!
Didn’t matter. The cases (some 70 of them) were thrown out.
Well the snark fits you but l stand by my reasoning. A candidate who has had an election stolen from them sure as hell should have standing to contest it. Water is wet.
Which is why I'm not a lawyer or a judge...
Well maybe, at least in this instance, we are more qualified than those who are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.