Judicial Watch

Election Integrity Update!

Fri, 10/10/2025 - 13:19

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Historic Illinois Election Integrity Case
Judicial Watch Sues ODNI for Records on Voting Machine Vulnerabilities
Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records on Alleged Crime Data Manipulation
Oklahoma Nabs 125 Illegal Alien Truckers with Commercial Licenses

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Historic Illinois Election Integrity Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the historic case we filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors.

We were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after the Election Day as set by federal law (Rep. Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).

We initially filed the lawsuit on May 25, 2022. A lower court dismissed the claim for lack of standing, which was upheld by a split 2-1 panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

This is the most important Supreme Court election law case in a generation. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive AFTER Election Day. We will keep you informed of all the developments in this case.

Our September brief to the High Court states:

Illinois counts mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. Petitioners, candidates for federal office, claim that under controlling federal law that is two weeks too long. As a result, Illinois is counting unlawful ballots and producing inaccurate vote tallies, while simultaneously hurting petitioners’ prospects at the ballot box and injuring their pocketbooks.

We submit that the Seventh Circuit’s decision is wrong and dangerous:

It is wrong because candidates have standing to challenge the rules that govern their elections, especially when their merits theory (which must be credited for standing purposes) is that the challenged rule produces an inaccurate final tally. At a minimum, the candidate has standing when (as here) he plausibly alleges that the challenged rule will harm his electoral prospects and reduce his bank balance because he needs to pay campaign staff an extra two weeks. And the decision is dangerous because it forces judges to play political prognosticators, skews standing rules to favor certain kinds of candidates, and funnels election disputes to the worst possible context—namely, after the election where judges are asked to declare political winners. This Court should reverse.

We state that Bost has standing to challenge the Illinois law:

At the very least, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the Illinois ballot-receipt deadline here, as a host of diverse amici confirm. Congressman Bost plausibly alleged a substantial risk that counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day will harm his electoral prospects both by risking electoral defeat and reducing his margin of victory. The plausibility of those allegations was amply reinforced by the Illinois Democratic Party’s attempted intervention and voting and litigation patterns nationwide. And he has also plausibly alleged a classic pocketbook injury because he expended additional campaign funds as a direct result of the state’s extended deadline for receiving mail-in ballots. Here too, the notion that an election artificially extended a fortnight costs more than one that ends on Election Day hardly strains credulity. The state’s contrary arguments lack merit.

In our previous Supreme Court brief, we stated:

Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day.

***

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

***

Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

We are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of our work, we have assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads our election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is representing Congressman Bost and the electors with us before the Supreme Court. Clement is former solicitor general under President George W. Bush from 2005-2008 and is widely regarded as among the top Supreme Court litigators in the country.

Russell Nobile, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, is part of Judicial Watch’s voting integrity efforts and focuses on campaign and voting issues, civil rights issues, constitutional law, official misconduct by public institutions and officials, and other issues.

Eric Lee is an attorney at Judicial Watch, where he focuses on enforcing federal and state laws that promote transparency and integrity in the electoral process. Eric graduated with his B.A. from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and received his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. He is licensed to practice in California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and in federal courts in Illinois and Colorado.

We recently filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, opposing the State of Mississippi’s attempt to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which struck down a law allowing ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois recently ruled that our lawsuits against those states may proceed to force them to clean their voter rolls.

We announced in May that our work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.

Judicial Watch Sues ODNI for Records on Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

The Trump administration knows electronic voting machines are vulnerable, and we think the American people deserve transparency on this critically important matter.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for records on which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard based a discussion of the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines in an April White House cabinet meeting (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (No. 1:25-cv-03526)).

In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that included a directive to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to review the security of electronic voting systems. In an April 2025 White House Cabinet meeting Gabbard indicated that voting machines are susceptible to hacking and capable of changing votes.

We sued after the Office of the Director for National Intelligence failed to respond to an April 11, 2025, FOIA request for:

Any records about statements made by Director Gabbard during a cabinet meeting with President Trump in which she stated that: “We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast…”

All reports, evidence, assessments, memoranda, and/or briefings prepared by, for, or presented to the ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] (including the National Intelligence Council or any Intelligence Community component) that evaluate the security, integrity, or vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems in the United States, particularly any documents referenced or relied upon by Director Gabbard in making her statements as described above.

Communications of Director Gabbard and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] personnel or between Director Gabbard (or her designated representative) and the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense relating to the content or preparation of Director Gabbard’s statements.

We continue to fight for American voters and their right to know how elections are being carried out, which includes evidence of vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems.

Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records on Alleged Crime Data Manipulation

How bad is crime in your nation’s capital? We’re not entirely sure.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia for records related to allegations of crime data manipulation by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) (Judicial Watch Inc. v. District of Columbia(No. 2025-CAB-006701)).

It was recently reported that DC police officers are cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice in an investigation into whistleblower reports of manipulated crime data.

The lawsuit follows DC’s failure to respond to an August 14, 2025, FOIA request for:

Complaints or communications from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Chairman Greggory Pemberton, or union representatives alleging MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] supervisors falsified or downgraded crime data (e.g., classifying shootings as “felony assaults” or carjackings as lesser offenses).
Internal audits, reviews, or quality control assessments of crime reporting practices in the 3rd District or department-wide, including comparisons of raw incident reports to finalized Uniform Crime Reporting data.
Records of past allegations from 2019-2020, including whistleblower complaints about misclassifying violent crimes (e.g., the August 2019 face-slashing or December 2019 knife-to-neck incidents reported as “simple assault”).
Policies, guidelines, training materials, or directives on crime classification and reporting, including updates since 2019 on violent crime definitions (e.g., distinguishing “assault with a dangerous weapon” from “simple assault”).
Communications among MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] personnel (e.g., supervisors, commanders, or data analysts) discussing adjustments to crime statistics to reflect lower violent crime rates

In August, President Trump issued an executive order, “Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia,” which refers to the “epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital” and authorized the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the DC National Guard.

The House Oversight Committee announced in August that it was launching an investigation into allegations of manipulated and inaccurate crime statistics by DC Metropolitan Police Department leadership. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) stated.

[I]n May, MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] placed 3rd District Commander Michael Pulliam on administrative leave following allegations that he altered crime reports. Unfortunately, this practice does not appear to be isolated, nor is it a recent development. MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] recently entered into a settlement agreement related to allegations that senior MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] officials were engaged in falsifying crime statistics to artificially lower reported crime rates.

People who live in, work in, and visit Washington, DC, have the right to real transparency about crime in the nation’s capital.

Oklahoma Nabs 125 Illegal Alien Truckers with Commercial Licenses

The Trump administration is cleaning up highway safety after the careless Biden years, helping to restore law and order on our roadways. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports on one state that is helping.

Weeks after a criminal illegal alien with a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) killed three people while recklessly driving a big rig on a Florida highway, officials in Oklahoma have apprehended over 125 illegal immigrants with a CDL they did not qualify for, including one listing “No Name Given” on the card. This is a widespread problem caused by state driver licensing agencies that fail to ensure truckers have proper training or legal status in the United States before issuing the special commercial licenses. Adding to the problem, many Mexican truck drivers that consistently deliver loads north of the border do not speak English and cannot read American highway signs, endangering public safety across the country. Nearly 6 million trucks crossed from Mexico into the U.S. last year, according to government figures, and though federal regulations require drivers to sufficiently read and speak English and understand highway traffic signs the Obama administration relaxed the English proficiency rules in 2016 and directed inspectors not to penalize truckers.

Sanctuary states have contributed significantly to the crisis by allowing illegal immigrants to obtain licenses to operate commercial vehicles. The illegal alien from India who killed three people with his 18-wheeler in mid-August had a valid commercial driver’s license from California, a renowned sanctuary state. His name is Harjinder Singh, and he tried to make an illegal U-turn on a busy southeastern Florida highway in his enormous tractor trailer, suddenly blocking all oncoming lanes and causing a brutal accident that instantly killed three innocent people. Federal authorities say video from inside the truck shows the exact moment Singh decided to break U.S. highway laws as he turned his big rig into traffic. “His face shows no shock or remorse for his actions or the lives he destroyed,” a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statement says. The illegal immigrant, who is 28 years old, was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and recently entered a not guilty plea, according to a local news report that also says Singh first got his commercial driver’s license in Washington state before California.

There could be untold numbers of truckers like Singh driving big rigs on highways across America. In Oklahoma alone more than 125 illegal immigrants were recently apprehended in a targeted initiative known as Operation Guardian along Interstate 40 in the western part of the state. The licenses were issued by states like California and Washington that offer illegal immigrants’ sanctuary. The illegal alien drivers arrested in Oklahoma are from a variety of countries, including India, Uzbekistan, China, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Mauritania. The commercial license that listed “No Name Given” was issued by the state of New York. All the individuals posed a public safety risk by operating 80,000-pound commercial vehicles without proper verification, Oklahoma authorities say. “If New York wants to hand out CDLs to illegal immigrants with ‘No Name Given,’ that’s on them,” said Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt. “The moment they cross into Oklahoma, they answer to our laws.” He added that Operation Guardian, a partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was launched to help keep his state safe.

The Trump administration is working to crack down on the problem by strengthening federal oversight of how states issue commercial learner’s permits and licenses after the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) found systemic non-compliance nationwide, including in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. As a result, ineligible drivers and those with expiration dates extending beyond their legal stay in the U.S. were issued commercial licenses. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy also reversed the dangerous Obama-era policy that dismissed longstanding Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) English-language proficiency standards by placing noncompliant drivers out of service. “Americans are a lot safer on roads alongside truckers who can understand and interpret our traffic signs,” Duffy said when he issued the order. “This common-sense change ensures the penalty for failure to comply is more than a slap on the wrist.”

Until next week,

The post Election Integrity Update! appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Kavanaugh Blasts Illinois For Flip-Flopping On Candidate Standing In Election Litigation

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 10:55

From The Federalist:

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh admonished the Democrat-led state of Illinois for seemingly flip-flopping on arguments it made in a high-stakes case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The moment occurred during oral arguments for Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, which centers around a 2022 challenge brought by Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and other Republicans against a state law allowing ballots to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day. Dismissed by the lower courts over alleged “lack of standing,” the plaintiffs have asked the justices to address the “sole question” of whether they, “as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.”

Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records on Alleged Crime Data Manipulation

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 08:52

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia for records related to allegations of crime data manipulation by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) (Judicial Watch Inc. v. District of Columbia (No. 2025-CAB-006701)).

It was recently reported that DC police officers are cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice in an investigation into whistleblower reports of manipulated crime data.

The lawsuit follows the DC’s failure to respond to an August 14, 2025, FOIA request for:

Complaints or communications from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Chairman Greggory Pemberton, or union representatives alleging MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] supervisors falsified or downgraded crime data (e.g., classifying shootings as “felony assaults” or carjackings as lesser offenses).
Internal audits, reviews, or quality control assessments of crime reporting practices in the 3rd District or department-wide, including comparisons of raw incident reports to finalized Uniform Crime Reporting data.
Records of past allegations from 2019-2020, including whistleblower complaints about misclassifying violent crimes (e.g., the August 2019 face-slashing or December 2019 knife-to-neck incidents reported as “simple assault”).
Policies, guidelines, training materials, or directives on crime classification and reporting, including updates since 2019 on violent crime definitions (e.g., distinguishing “assault with a dangerous weapon” from “simple assault”).
Communications among MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] personnel (e.g., supervisors, commanders, or data analysts) discussing adjustments to crime statistics to reflect lower violent crime rates.

In August, President Trump issued an executive order, “Restoring Law and Order in the District of Columbia,” which refers to the “epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital” and authorized the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the DC National Guard.

The House Oversight Committee announced in August that it was launching an investigation into allegations of manipulated and inaccurate crime statistics by DC Metropolitan Police Department leadership. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) stated:

[I]n May, MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] placed 3rd District Commander Michael Pulliam on administrative leave following allegations that he altered crime reports. Unfortunately, this practice does not appear to be isolated, nor is it a recent development. MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] recently entered into a settlement agreement related to allegations that senior MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] officials were engaged in falsifying crime statistics to artificially lower reported crime rates.

“People who live in, work in, and visit Washington, DC, have the right to real transparency about crime in the nation’s capital,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues DC for Records on Alleged Crime Data Manipulation appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Supreme Court Seems Receptive to Challenge to Post-Election Ballot Counting

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 07:46

The Epoch Times:

The Supreme Court seemed receptive on Oct. 8 to a Republican congressman’s argument that he should be allowed to challenge an Illinois law that allows the counting of ballots for two weeks after Election Day.

Arguments in the case focused on the question of legal standing, as opposed to the merits of the lawsuit contesting the Illinois statute.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. A party must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify participating in a lawsuit.

Justices eye letting candidates challenge states that change voting rules

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 07:44

From Washington Times:

The Supreme Court seemed poised Wednesday to embrace new rules that would give candidates for federal office the chance to challenge election rules in court well before votes are cast, a move that could give Republicans more room to confront Democratic states’ mail-in ballot laws.

The justices heard oral arguments on a case from Rep. Mike Bost, a Republican who was denied the chance to challenge Illinois’ law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to two weeks after Election Day. Lower courts ruled he didn’t have legal standing to sue because he couldn’t show he was particularly injured by the law.

Most of the justices seemed dismayed by that argument. They said giving candidates at least some chance to sue seemed reasonable.

US Supreme Court hears arguments in GOP Illinois congressman’s mail-in ballots suit

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 07:41

From Chicago Tribune:

Bost first challenged the law in May 2022, assisted by the conservative legal organization Judicial Watch, contending ballots should be counted on Election Day and that post-election counting threatened to dilute his margin of victory and required him to spend money on ballot watchers for the extended time period, causing him reputational and financial injury.

Attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, represented Bost and Judicial Watch. Clement argued that “candidates have a unique, concrete and particularized interest in the rules of the electoral road, especially those that address which ballots are going to be counted and when.

Justice Roberts raises concerns about limiting candidate lawsuits to ‘fraught’ election time

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 07:36

From Washington Examiner:

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern during oral arguments on Wednesday that Illinois wants the high court to limit candidates’ ability to sue over election laws to the “most fraught” time of the campaign, questioning the state’s argument that candidates must wait for evidence that a state law has harmed or will harm their election before filing a lawsuit.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections grappled with when a political candidate has shown harm by a law sufficient to file a lawsuit. Justices expressed concerns over both sides’ arguments, ranging from the prospect that candidates with no chance of winning will be able to sue over any election law, to the concern of courts’ need to determine whether a candidate has a chance of winning before assessing whether they have standing.

Supreme Court likely to favor GOP challenge to Illinois mail-in ballot rules in case with major election implications

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 07:34

From New York Post:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to greenlight a slew of challenges to election laws by political candidates — which could lead to massive impacts on the next presidential vote in 2028.

A majority of the high court seemed to side with Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), who petitioned the court to allow his lawsuit challenging an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked before Election Day to be counted up to two weeks after polls close to move forward.

Bost’s case had been rejected by the lower courts, including the Chicago-based US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which determined the lawmaker — who represents a deep-red district in Southern Illinois — lacked standing on the grounds that his lawsuit was speculative and showed no evidence of harm.

“What you’re sketching out for us is a potential disaster,” Chief Justice John Roberts told an attorney for Illinois who questioned whether candidates likely to win could challenge election laws they found unjust..

Judicial Watch Sues for Tulsi Gabbard’s Cabinet Meeting Statements on Electronic Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

Thu, 10/09/2025 - 06:29

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for records from an April White House cabinet meeting in which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discussed the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (No. 1:25-cv-03526)).

In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that included a directive to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to review the security of electronic voting systems. In an April 2025 White House Cabinet meeting Gabbard indicated that voting machines are susceptible to hacking and capable of changing votes.

Judicial Watch sued after the Office of the Director for National Intelligence failed to respond to an April 11, 2025, FOIA request for:

Any records about statements made by Director Gabbard during a cabinet meeting with President Trump in which she stated that: “We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast…”

All reports, evidence, assessments, memoranda, and/or briefings prepared by, for, or presented to the ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] (including the National Intelligence Council or any Intelligence Community component) that evaluate the security, integrity, or vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems in the United States, particularly any documents referenced or relied upon by Director Gabbard in making her statements as described above.

Communications of Director Gabbard and ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] personnel or between Director Gabbard (or her designated representative) and the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense relating to the content or preparation of Director Gabbard’s statements.

“Judicial Watch continues to fight for American voters and their right to know how elections are being carried out, which includes evidence of vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced election law attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Judicial Watch recently presented oral arguments to the Supreme Court of the United States in a historic case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.

Judicial Watch in August 2025 filed a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, opposing the State of Mississippi’s attempt to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision, which struck down a law allowing ballots received after Election Day to be counted.

Federal courts for Oregon, California and Illinois have ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuits may proceed against those states to force them to clean their voter rolls.

Judicial Watch announced in May that its work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues for Tulsi Gabbard’s Cabinet Meeting Statements on Electronic Voting Machine Vulnerabilities appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Supreme Court takes case on post-Election Day ballots to determine who can sue over elections

Wed, 10/08/2025 - 05:30

From Just the News:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear oral arguments for a Judicial Watch case regarding Illinois’ law that allows mail-in ballots to be accepted for two weeks after Election Day, in which the justices will determine whether the congressman bringing the lawsuit has standing.

Judicial Watch, on behalf of Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., filed a lawsuit in May 2022 over Illinois’ law that lets ballots postmarked by Election Day be received up to 14 days after the election.

Judicial Watch: Supreme Court Oral Argument on Wednesday in Historic Illinois Election Integrity Case

Tue, 10/07/2025 - 05:52

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that oral argument will be held on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, in the Supreme Court of the United States in a historic case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who are before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day (Rep. Michael J. Bost, Laura Pollastrini, and Susan Sweeney v. The Illinois State Board of Elections and Bernadette Matthews (No. 1:22-cv-02754, 23-2644, 24-568)).

The case concerns whether Bost and the electors have standing to challenge Illinois’ counting of ballots that arrive after the Election Day deadlines set by federal law. The Election Day lawsuit was initially filed on May 25, 2022. A lower court dismissed the claim for lack of standing, which was upheld by a split 2-1 panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“This is the most important Supreme Court election law case in a generation. Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous act of counting ballots that arrive AFTER Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity will tune in closely to Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court arguments Wednesday,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch’s September brief to the High Court states:

Illinois counts mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day. Petitioners, candidates for federal office, claim that under controlling federal law that is two weeks too long. As a result, Illinois is counting unlawful ballots and producing inaccurate vote tallies, while simultaneously hurting petitioners’ prospects at the ballot box and injuring their pocketbooks.

Judicial Watch submits that the Seventh Circuit’s decision is wrong and dangerous:

It is wrong because candidates have standing to challenge the rules that govern their elections, especially when their merits theory (which must be credited for standing purposes) is that the challenged rule produces an inaccurate final tally. At a minimum, the candidate has standing when (as here) he plausibly alleges that the challenged rule will harm his electoral prospects and reduce his bank balance because he needs to pay campaign staff an extra two weeks. And the decision is dangerous because it forces judges to play political prognosticators, skews standing rules to favor certain kinds of candidates, and funnels election disputes to the worst possible context—namely, after the election where judges are asked to declare political winners. This Court should reverse.

Judicial Watch states that Bost has standing to challenge the Illinois law:

At the very least, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the Illinois ballot-receipt deadline here, as a host of diverse amici confirm. Congressman Bost plausibly alleged a substantial risk that counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day will harm his electoral prospects both by risking electoral defeat and reducing his margin of victory. The plausibility of those allegations was amply reinforced by the Illinois Democratic Party’s attempted intervention and voting and litigation patterns nationwide. And he has also plausibly alleged a classic pocketbook injury because he expended additional campaign funds as a direct result of the state’s extended deadline for receiving mail-in ballots. Here too, the notion that an election artificially extended a fortnight costs more than one that ends on Election Day hardly strains credulity. The state’s contrary arguments lack merit.

In its previous Supreme Court brief, Judicial Watch states:

Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day.

***

Candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

***

Candidates pour enormous resources into running for election and have an obvious interest in the rules that dictate how long their races will last and how the ballots will be counted. They also have a distinct interest “in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast.”

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii and cleaned up voter rolls across the country, among other achievements.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

Paul Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is representing Congressman Bost and the electors with Judicial Watch before the Supreme Court. Clement is former solicitor general under President George W. Bush from 2005-2008 and is widely regarded as among the top Supreme Court litigators in the country.

T. Russell Nobile, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, is part of Judicial Watch’s voting integrity efforts and focuses on campaign and voting issues, civil rights issues, constitutional law, official misconduct by public institutions and officials, and other issues.