The Supreme Court said on June 2 that it will consider a congressman’s challenge to an Illinois law that allows ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day to be counted.

A victory for the petitioner, Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.), could open the door to more lawsuits being filed in other states against the late counting of ballots.

Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, who were Republican presidential elector nominees for the 2020 and 2024 federal elections, are also petitioners in the case.

Eighteen states, including Illinois, accept mailed ballots received after Election Day if they bear a postmark from Election Day or before that date, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures report. The District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands also follow the same rule.

The court granted the petition in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections in an unsigned order. The court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented.

Lower courts rejected the argument of Bost, who said the law extending counting beyond Election Day conflicts with federal law.

In the petition filed on Nov. 19, 2024, Bost said, “Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day.”

“Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day,” but these laws are preempted, or overridden, by the U.S. Constitution’s elections and elector clauses, the petition states.

The petitioners argued that they have standing in the case because they incur expenses in running their campaigns for an extra two weeks to keep an eye on the receipt and counting of ballots. They also argued that they have an interest as candidates in ensuring that validly received ballots are accurately counted, according to the petition.

“For over 130 years, this Court has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state time, place, or manner regulations affecting their federal elections,” the petition reads. “Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations.”

Bost sued in 2022, but a federal district judge ruled that he lacked standing to proceed.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

Judge John Kness of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled on July 26, 2023, that the petitioners cannot claim standing on the basis of their status as political candidates and voters. The judge also found that the petitioners failed to assert a legally viable claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district judge’s ruling.

“Plaintiffs here only claim a generalized grievance affecting all Illinois voters; therefore, they have not alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury in fact to support Article III standing,” the appeals court wrote in its Aug. 21, 2024, decision.

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution governs federal courts and has been interpreted as saying that those courts may hear only cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue.

A concrete injury is one that is real, as opposed to abstract. A particularized injury is one that affects a plaintiff individually.

“Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the Illinois ballot receipt procedure,” the appeals court stated.

Judicial Watch, the group that brought the appeal on behalf of the petitioners, hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to accept the case.

“It is an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks after Election Day,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told The Epoch Times.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights, and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14-day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters, and invites fraud.”

The Epoch Times reached out to the Illinois attorney general’s office. No reply was received by publication time.

The Supreme Court’s decision to accept the appeal comes after President Donald Trump on March 25 signed Executive Order 14248, dealing with elections. The order requires that “votes be cast and received” by Election Day and bases federal funding on state compliance.

The executive order is being challenged in the courts.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 2, 2025, in The Epoch Times.

Photo: U.S. Rep. Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican