BREAKING NEWS: Breakthrough in the "Standing" Rule and Hope for Relief in Michigan

By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI News & Commentary Editor

January 14, 2025

In a 7-2 decision issued Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled GOP Congressman Michael Bost has standing to sue the state of Illinois for its policy of counting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to two weeks later.

The ruling could unleash a wave of candidate-led challenges to state voting rules nationwide.

In an email statement, Hans von Spakovsky, co-author of Our Broken Elections: How the Left Changed the Way You Vote, told MFEI News & Commentary: “This is a terrific result, with the majority providing a very broad and easy-to-meet standing rule for candidates”

Standing has been THE roadblock for many election integrity-related lawsuits. It has forced plaintiffs to show two things: they personally suffered a specific harm from the defendant's actions and a court ruling could remedy that harm. This rule killed most of these cases before judges even looked at the evidence.

In a text message, Michigan Fair Elections Institute (MFEI) Founder and Chair Patrice Johnson was full of optimism: “This ruling is a grand slam for election integrity in Michigan. It reinforces federal oversight of state election practices, potentially strengthening Michigan's system by ensuring candidates can enforce ‘rules of fair competition’ without waiting for post-election chaos. With midterms on the horizon, expect Michigan's political players to leverage this precedent in safeguarding — or contesting — the ballot box.”

Michigan Fair Elections Institute has been carefully watching the Bost case because the issue of standing prevented the Michigan legislators’ case, Lindsey v Whitmer, from going forward. A positive ruling in Bost could change the landscape.

The 11 Republican lawmakers sued in 2023, claiming voter-approved constitutional amendments (Proposals 2 and 3) from 2022 illegally expanded voting access and overrode their authority under the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause. However, the federal district court ruled in April 2024 — and a ruling on appeal affirmed — the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate a concrete, personal injury. Courts viewed the legislators' complaint as a generalized institutional grievance about legislative power, not a specific harm traceable to the defendants (like Gov. Whitmer) that a ruling could redress. This procedural hurdle prevented any review of the merits. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively shutting down the challenge.

In an email statement to MFEI News & Commentary, Elizabeth Nielsen, one of the attorneys representing the Michigan legislators, wrote, "The Supreme Court’s Bost opinion today is a win for everyone dedicated to election integrity in our elections. Now, candidates for office in Michigan know they have standing in federal courts to level the playing field when unfair election rules threaten to create inaccurate results.”

In an X post, Johnson revealed, “MFEI was pleased to submit an amicus curiae in support of Bost. During the SCOTUS hearing, one of the justices quoted our brief about the need to ensure fair competition.”

The fact that the SCOTUS decision was supported by seven of the nine justices is additional cause for celebration, although one source expressed concern about Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing: "She agrees with the judgment, but her opinion shows a lack of knowledge of the election issues we deal with constantly. Her failure to agree with all of the election integrity and other issues that the majority say give a candidate standing is very disappointing.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.