114 F.4th 634
7th Cir.2024Background
- Illinois law allows mail-in ballots postmarked or certified by Election Day to be counted for up to 14 days after Election Day.
- Plaintiffs, including Rep. Michael Bost and other Illinois voters/candidates, challenge this procedure, arguing it violates federal election laws and dilutes their votes.
- Plaintiffs allege the post-election counting period increases votes and forces candidates to extend campaign operations, amounting to constitutional and statutory violations.
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that plaintiffs alleged no concrete, particularized injury giving rise to standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vote dilution from post-Election Day ballots | Counting late-arriving ballots violates federal law, dilutes timely votes | Any effect is generalized; plaintiffs not uniquely harmed | No standing—injury not particularized |
| Increased candidate campaign costs | Extended counting period forces costly campaign vigilance | Expenses are elective, speculative, not traceable to law | No standing—harm too speculative |
| Competitive injury as candidates | Post-Election Day ballots may shrink victory margins, impact reputation | No concrete evidence harm is certain or candidate-specific | No standing—harm speculative, not imminent |
| State deviation from federal law | State law contradicts federal election day statutes | Generalized grievance, no personal injury | No standing—injury to lawfulness not sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Art. III standing requirements—injury, traceability, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (concrete and particularized injury required for standing)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (injury must be actual or imminent, not conjectural)
- Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (states’ discretion in federal elections unless preempted by Congress)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (standing in malapportionment claims requires individualized injury)
- Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (standing for redistricting claims requires individual/personal harm)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (self-imposed costs based on speculative fear insufficient for standing)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (general interest in government lawfulness is not Article III injury)