Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* Tribune…
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a downstate Republican congressman and two GOP officials that sought to block the state from counting mail-in ballots cast on or before Election Day, but received by election authorities up to two weeks afterward.
U.S. District Judge John Kness ruled that five-term U.S. Rep. Mike Bost of Murphysboro and two prospective 2024 GOP presidential electors lacked standing to sue the State Board of Elections over an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in the 14 days after Election Day as long as they were postmarked or certified on or before that day.
More than just rejecting the three Republicans’ standing to file suit, Kness explicitly ruled that Illinois’ 2015 law complied with the U.S. Constitution as well as federal election law. […]
Bost’s challenge to the law was somewhat ironic since he touts his past service in the Marines and the law was designed in part to meet federal voting requirements for military members serving overseas. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a “statement of interest” in support of the state of Illinois, in part citing protections for military members to have their votes counted.
* Democratic Party of Illinois…
Last night, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Congressman Mike Bost’s challenge to Illinois’ Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute. Bost filed this suit against the State Board of Elections ahead of last year’s election in an attempt to prevent the counting of mail-in-ballots received after Election Day. The lawsuit could have invalidated thousands of mail-in ballots, including those of military members serving overseas, if they are postmarked on or before Election Day but received after. […]
“This ruling by a Trump-appointed judge is a win for voting rights and a loss for those who wish to suppress fairly counted votes to suit their political ambitions. Despite their bad faith effort to undermine free and fair elections, this ruling shows the lack of legal standing Republicans have in challenging laws that protect our right to vote. The Illinois GOP knows how wildly out of touch they’ve become with Illinoisans, but fortunately, their effort to override the will of the voters with this baseless lawsuit rather than accepting the results of our elections was as unsuccessful as their campaigns,” said Democratic Party of Illinois Chair Lisa Hernandez.
* From the decision…
Plaintiff argues that the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute directly contradicts Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. That section establishes that “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Nothing on the face of the Statute runs afoul of this constitutional provision. By implementing the Statute, Illinois is following the constitutional command that states determine the time, place, and manner of elections. In addition, the Statute further does not conflict with the federal mandate that Election Day be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. By counting only mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, the Statute does not extend the day for casting votes in a federal election. Because the Statute does not conflict with a constitutional provision, it does not fall under the plan of Convention doctrine. […]
Plaintiffs allege that the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute violates 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 by allowing the state to count votes that are received after Election Day, even if they are postmarked on or before the date of the election or certified before Election Day. (Dkt. 1 at 10.) But the Statute does not contradict 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1. As the statute says, all mail-in ballots must be “postmarked no later than election day.” 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/19-8(c). If a ballot is not postmarked, it must be certified on or before Election Day to be counted. Id. Nowhere in the text does the Statute allow ballots postmarked or certified after Election Day to be counted. The question, then, is whether ballots that are postmarked or certified on or before Election Day, but are not received by Election Day, should be disregarded as untimely under federal law. […]
In this Court’s view, and with due respect to Plaintiffs’ contrary view, the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute operates harmoniously with the federal statutes that set the timing for federal elections. Many states have post-Election Day absentee ballot receipt deadlines, and at least two states other than Illinois allow mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received within two weeks of Election Day. … Other states will accept mail-in ballots received seven to 10 days after Election Day. … Despite these ballot receipt deadline statutes being in place for many years in many states, Congress has never stepped in and altered the rules.
Moreover, the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute is facially compatible with the relevant federal statutes. By counting only these ballots that are postmarked no later than Election Day, the Statute complies with federal law that set the date for Election Day. As the United States notes in its statement of interest in this case (Dkt. 47), even federal laws governing elections allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted. […]
More broadly, Plaintiffs consistently—and wrongly—conflate “voting” with “counting votes.” The word “voting” as used in this case is a gerund; that is, a word derived from a verb that functions as a noun. As a derivative of the verb “to vote,” “voting” refers to a specific act: casting a vote. Under the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute, the voting deadline is unambiguous: the act of voting must take place on or before Election Day. 10 ILCS § 5/19-8(c). Counting those votes, however, may take place up to 14 days after Election Day. Id. Voting (as an act) and counting votes (as a separate act) are not the same thing, and the Statute allows counting alone—not voting—to continue after Election Day. […]
Plaintiffs allege that the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute forces Congressman Bost and other candidates “to spend money, devote time, and otherwise injuriously rely on unlawful provisions of state law in organizing, funding, and running their campaigns.” Plaintiffs do not, in connection with their right to stand for office claim, explain why the Statute constitutes an invalid regulation of the times, places, and manner of federal elections. Instead, Plaintiffs merely set forth their reasons why the Statute could make standing for federal office in Illinois more challenging
These allegations do not assert a plausible claim that the Ballot Receipt Deadline Statute impairs the right to stand for office. Spending time and money on campaigning is an inevitable feature of running for office, and Plaintiffs do not contend that the extra time and money they might have to spend due to the Statute prevents them from standing for office at all. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ “right to stand for office” claim is unavailing.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 4:23 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“We’ll never win if they won’t let us suppress the vote.”
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 4:33 pm
===The word “voting” as used in this case is a gerund; that is, a word derived from a verb that functions as a noun.===
The grammar lesson was a nice touch.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 4:41 pm
And all is as it should be… Bost is likely tossing his suit into the air as we read this…
Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 4:59 pm
We can’t win elections when ballots are actually counted
That it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 5:01 pm
I hope the court sanctions both the attorneys and the clients like Judge Anderson did in Will County. Courts are not for the silly.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 6:01 pm
- These allegations do not assert a plausible claim… -
Coulda stopped there…quite simply.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Thursday, Jul 27, 23 @ 6:10 pm
- These allegations do not assert a plausible claim… -
Coulda stopped there…quite simply.
The court needed a lot of crayons to explain to these folks. Bost and cronies will mine this ruling for trolling points. Bailey needs to up his outrage game.
Comment by froganon Friday, Jul 28, 23 @ 10:18 am
Judge Kness defines “gerund” for the Rep
Comment by walker Friday, Jul 28, 23 @ 11:37 am