SCOTUS: New Ruling Resolves Core ‘Standing’ Issue That Drove 2020 Election Controversies
The frustration came from all the cases that were never heard in the first place
There is a quirk in American jurisprudence that makes it different from many other jurisprudence. There are ground rules on who can take someone to court and why. It comes down to a question of who, when, and why.
Bring a case before the injury has been suffered, and it is not yet ‘ripe’. Bring it after the events in question can no longer be reversed or remedied, and it is ‘moot’. Bring a case for which you have not personally suffered harm and you don’t have the necessary standing to seek judicial redress.
That’s exactly the no-man’s land that many of the cases brought in 2020 found themselves in, dying on the vine and thrown out of court even before the particulars could be presented. Naturally, anyone who saw suspicious video, or un-reconciled ballot numbers, windows covered up to prevent observers from seeing what happened inside, or any number of other objectionable behaviours to which voters in several swing states objected would find that judicial no-man’s land maddening.
No court date. No hearing. No remedy.
No satisfaction that grievances had been heard.
Even if there was alleged wrongdoing, hands were tied and nothing could be done.
Until now.
We all saw the volatile situation that came in the wake of that frustration, and the discredit voting integrity has come up against ever since.
With an alarming amount of fraud turning up, like ballot stuffing in Democrat primaries, people with illegal drivers’ licences, illegal aliens being called for jury duty, or building superintendents being charged for filling the ballots of former tenants, there is no shortage plausible examples where candidates may raise meaningful questions about whether the process has been run fairly.
Justice Roberts just threw them a lifeline.
On Wednesday, SCOTUS handed down a 7-2 ruling that goes a long way toward solving this question in the future.
This ruling lays out details of the special standing a candidate would have in challenging the results of a given election. It came up within the context of an Illinois ruling, but the John Roberts ruling has become the new precedent.
The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.
It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.
“Candidates 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,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.
Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted. — ABC
What does that mean for candidates?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which invoked a standing rule for candidates, emphasizing that they are not “mere bystanders” in the electoral process. The Court argued that while voters have a general interest in election integrity, a candidate’s interest is “different in kind.” Candidates spend vast resources seeking to represent the people and have a concrete stake in ensuring the results accurately reflect the people’s will.
Roberts noted that rules undermining election integrity also undermine the winner’s political legitimacy. For an elected official, a loss of public confidence — even if they win — is a “reputational harm” which constitutes a classic Article III injury. The Court refused to require candidates to prove they would likely lose in order to gain standing. Roberts argued that forcing candidates to wait until an election is close or finished to sue would lead to “late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes” that cause voter confusion and undermine democratic stability. — DailyWire
Justice Kagan joined with the majority, while Justices Sotomayor and Brown dissented.