The Supreme Court Expands Who Can Challenge Election Rules

What Happened 

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that candidates have legal standing to challenge the rules governing vote counting in their own elections. The case centered on Rep. Mike Bost, an Illinois Republican who contested a state law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within 14 days afterward. 

Lower courts had dismissed Bost’s lawsuit, arguing he couldn’t prove the extended counting period harmed his electoral prospects. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed, stating that candidates have a personal stake in the rules that determine how votes in their races are tallied. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning the decision could open the floodgates to candidate-driven election litigation.

The ruling does not address the constitutionality of Illinois’ ballot-counting law. The bigger question of whether states can count late-arriving ballots will be decided in a separate Mississippi case this term. For now, the Court only established that candidates need not prove specific harm to challenge election procedures affecting their races.

Why It Matters

This decision lowers barriers for bringing election law challenges. Previously, candidates had to prove they were specifically disadvantaged. But moving forward, a direct interest in election administration is enough to sue.

In practice, candidates may challenge election procedures before votes are cast, including early voting and signature verification rules. Some see this as empowering oversight, while others fear it enables strategic lawsuits to influence administration.

The Surging AI Everyone Wants In On

$60M+ raised. 14,000+ investors. Valuation up 5,000%+ in 4 years*. Shares still only $0.85.

Backed by Adobe and insiders from Google, Meta, and Amazon, RAD Intel has its Nasdaq ticker ($RADI) reserved and a leadership team with $9 Billion+ in M&A transactions under their belt.

A who’s-who roster of Fortune 1000 clients and agency partners are already using their award-winning AI platform with recurring seven-figure partnerships in place.

Spotlighted in Fast Company, RAD Intel was described in a sponsored feature as “a groundbreaking step for the Creator Economy". Lots to like here; sales contracts have doubed in 2025 vs. 2024. Industry consolidation is exploding — 240 AI deals worth $55B in just six months.

Join early, diversify, and participate in RAD Intel’s upside today.

Own the layer everyone will build on.

👉 Invest Early -- Shares Just $0.85

Timing plays a crucial role. By allowing candidates to challenge rules before an election rather than only after a loss, the Court has enabled proactive litigation rather than reactive disputes, which could translate to greater legal certainty before voting begins, as courts resolve procedural questions in advance. It could also mean more election rules end up tied up in court battles right before voters head to the polls.

The 7-2 vote shows widespread support across the Court’s ideological lines, with justices from both Republican and Democratic presidential nominations in the majority. Only the two most liberal justices dissented, suggesting the reasoning appealed to conservatives and moderates alike. Chief Justice Roberts stressed that candidates shouldn’t be powerless to contest rules affecting how votes are counted.

How It Affects You 

The biggest and most obvious takeaway here is that election rules may more frequently be challenged and potentially changed. 

However, some may be concerned about increased litigation that creates confusion or last-minute rule changes. More lawsuits could mean that election officials face competing court orders, that voters encounter changing requirements, or that procedures differ from what election workers prepared for. The dissent’s warning about opening the floodgates reflects anxiety that candidates might file strategic lawsuits to gain an advantage or create chaos.

Of course, there's also the question of mail-in ballot deadlines, as many states allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window after Election Day. The Supreme Court will likely address whether this practice is constitutional in the upcoming Mississippi case. Depending on that ruling, millions of voters who rely on mail-in voting could see significant changes to how and when they must submit ballots.

Candidates have now been granted clearer authority to challenge procedures they believe violate election law, including ballot deadlines, verification processes, and counting methods. How frequently this gets used will depend on lower court applications of the Supreme Court's reasoning. The Mississippi decision will come later this term, providing more clarity on where the Court stands on ballot-counting disputes themselves.

*Disclaimer: This is a paid advertisement for RAD Intel made pursuant to Regulation A+ offering and involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. The valuation is set by the Company and there is currently no public market for the Company's Common Stock. Nasdaq ticker “RADI” has been reserved by RAD Intel and any potential listing is subject to future regulatory approval and market conditions. Brand references reflect factual platform use, not endorsement. Investor references reflect factual individual or institutional participation and do not imply endorsement or sponsorship by the referenced companies. Please read the offering circular and related risks at invest.radintel.ai.