Connect with us

Latest News

January 1, Kavanaugh Grills Illinois Over Election Law Flip-Flop

Published

on

Wyatt’s Take

  • Justice Kavanaugh called out Illinois for changing its legal stance mid-argument.
  • The case questions if Republican Rep. Mike Bost can challenge Illinois election rules in court.
  • The debate highlights growing concerns over post-election ballot handling and legal chaos.

During Supreme Court arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh accused Illinois of backing off its own claims in a heated election law dispute. Illinois faces criticism from both Kavanaugh and Justice Jackson for shifting arguments on whether federal candidates can legally oppose state ballot counting rules.

Kavanaugh told Illinois’ lawyer, “You’re walking away from a lot of your brief there … with that answer, which, that’s your choice.”

The case stems from Rep. Mike Bost and other Republicans challenging a rule that allows ballots to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day. Lower courts dismissed their lawsuit for a “lack of standing.” Now the Supreme Court must decide if Bost showed enough harm to have the right to sue.

Justice Kagan pressed the state’s lawyer, Jane Notz, about what proof candidates need for standing. Kagan said, “You do not want candidates to have to walk into federal court and show that … they’re up in the polls by ‘X’ amount or that they’ve won the last five elections by ‘X’ amount.” Notz replied, “That’s exactly our position… the burden is on the plaintiff.”

Kavanaugh raised concerns over endless lawsuits after close elections, warning of “the chaos of post-election litigation and how that would play out in a circumstance like a challenge to this particular ballot-counting rule.” He questioned what would happen if a rule was thrown out after election results were already in dispute.

When discussing what matters for candidates to have a legal right to sue, Notz mentioned prior candidate experience and election closeness. Justice Alito pushed back, asking if experience determines standing, to which Notz said Bost had enough knowledge to support his claims but new candidates might rely on advisers or polling info.

Justice Alito asked, “Are you seriously arguing that whether or not the allegations here are sufficient requires an analysis of the particular background and experience of the candidate who files the complaint?” Notz appeared to partly agree, pointing to Bost’s long history in elections as a factor.

This case shines a light on election rules that many in Middle America worry could lead to confusion and drawn-out court battles after the votes are counted.

Read the full report

Wyatt Matters

Election integrity is a kitchen-table issue for working Americans. Rules that keep changing and legal battles after the polls close shake faith in the system and threaten the voice of everyday voters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Click to comment


Wyatt Porter is a seasoned writer and constitutional scholar who brings a rugged authenticity and deep-seated patriotism to his work. Born and raised in small-town America, Wyatt grew up on a farm, where he learned the value of hard work and the pride that comes from it. As a conservative voice, he writes with the insight of a historian and the grit of a lifelong laborer, blending logic with a sharp wit. Wyatt’s work captures the struggles and triumphs of everyday Americans, offering readers a fresh perspective grounded in traditional values, individual freedom, and an unwavering love for his country.




Trending