"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," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion."
"Such late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes can result in voter confusion and undermine confidence in the integrity of electoral processes. The democratic consequences can be worse if courts intervene only after votes have been counted.""
"Candidates shouldn't sit on complaints about an election and see how it goes," said Rick Hasen,"
The Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that candidates have standing to challenge the rules governing how votes are counted in their elections. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that candidates possess a concrete and particularized interest in vote-counting rules regardless of electoral harm or campaign costs. The court rejected a requirement that candidates show "a substantial risk" of losing before suing, warning that waiting could force last-minute litigation. The opinion emphasized that late judicial changes can cause voter confusion and undermine confidence. Legal experts expect more election-law cases and urge candidates to bring challenges well before Election Day.
Read at Truthout
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]