- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court ruling allows political candidates to sue over election laws.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:15 pm
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that political candidates have the legal standing to challenge election laws before voting or counting starts.
The case before the court was brought by Illinois Republican U.S. Rep. Michael Bost and other candidates, who wanted to challenge a state law that allows election officials to count mail ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day, as long as they're postmarked on time.
Many states have laws that offer a buffer, or grace period, to voters to return mail ballots in case there are issues with the postal service, for example.
quote:
A lower court ruled that Bost did not have standing to challenge the Illinois law.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, disagreed.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, writing that "[c]andidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, joined by liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
In her dissent, Justice Jackson argued that the court was giving candidates the ability to sue in advance of provable harm, despite the fact that most voters don't have that ability.
"In a democratic society like ours, the interest in a fair electoral process is common to all members of the voting public," she wrote. "I believe that political candidates can and should be held to the same actual-injury requirements as other litigants."
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/14/nx-s1-5677318/supreme-court-bost-decision-candidate-standing
9
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:18 pm to loogaroo
Well, duh! If a candidate doesn't have standing, no one does.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:22 pm to loogaroo
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that political candidates have the legal standing to challenge election laws before voting or counting starts.
quote:
The case before the court was brought by Illinois Republican U.S. Rep. Michael Bost and other candidates, who wanted to challenge a state law that allows election officials to count mail ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day, as long as they're postmarked on time.
quote:
A lower court ruled that Bost did not have standing to challenge the Illinois law.
quote:
The conservative-majority Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, disagreed.
All those cases dismissed for not having standing over the 2020 Presidential Election would like to say hello.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:32 pm to loogaroo
quote:
"In a democratic society like ours, the interest in a fair electoral process is common to all members of the voting public," she wrote. "I believe that political candidates can and should be held to the same actual-injury requirements as other litigants."
If they get shafted in an election it injured their career.
Anyone that’s heard her speak knows she didn’t write that though. She can’t speak coherent English.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 3:38 pm to dalefla
Let’s let the libtards discuss this no standing my fricking arse.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:04 pm to loogaroo
So, this opens the door for discovery in GA, NV, AZ, WI and PA, correct?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:08 pm to loogaroo
That gerrymandering ruling is gonna break the real cheat by the liberal marxist democrats.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:11 pm to loogaroo
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that political candidates have the legal standing to challenge election laws before voting or counting starts.
This right here shows that even if the USA is the greatest country in the world, that the greatest country in the world still sucks. How in the hell can something this freaking obvious ever get into the court system.
I guess they can get around to ruling that the sky is blue now.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to loogaroo
Reading Jackson's dissent is entertaining in light of her blathering on trans in sports. 
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:12 pm to Timeoday
quote:
That gerrymandering ruling is gonna break the real cheat by the liberal marxist democrats.
Well, that, plus deporting the illegals whose names/presence on DMV rosters open up gigantic holes to drive semi trucks' worth of fraud ballots through.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:35 pm to omegaman66
quote:
How in the hell can something this freaking obvious ever get into the court system.
Too many attorneys. Ethics are far gone.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:35 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The moment I saw it was 7-2, I didn't even have to read further to know who were the two. Justices Diversity Hire and Wise Latina are nothing if not consistent at having the worst, most biased takes.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:38 pm to Bard
quote:
Justices Diversity Hire and Wise Latina
Every time I hear or read a leftist complain about the SC and or wanting to stack it all I need to do is look at these two slugs partisan voting record on decisions to know if we dont fight for this country we will lose it.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 4:40 pm to kilo
Wonder where SlowJacksonPro is to weigh in
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:02 pm to loogaroo
Much, much, much, more important federal election issues need addressing.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:16 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
So, this opens the door for discovery in GA, NV, AZ, WI and PA, correct?
I don't think so. This article is about the ability of candidate to sue over election laws before an election. It does not say anything about challenging the results of an election, which they already have the right to do.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News