US Supreme Court issues “BLOCKBUSTER” ruling
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision grants all candidates standing to challenge election laws, eliminating the need to prove concrete injury.
- ❖This ruling is expected to trigger a significant increase in pre-election litigation, potentially overwhelming federal courts.
- ❖Critics argue the ruling assumes good faith from litigants, which is often absent in politically motivated election challenges.
- ❖Voting rights advocates plan to leverage this new standing rule to proactively challenge voter suppression laws.
- ❖The majority opinion's language regarding 'integrity of the electoral process' is seen as 'right-coded' and potentially undermining public confidence by implicitly blaming those who question election results.
Insights
1Automatic Candidate Standing in Election Law Challenges
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that candidates always have standing to challenge election laws, overturning the previous requirement for a 'concrete injury.' This means a candidate no longer needs to demonstrate a direct, specific harm (like a close election result) to bring a lawsuit against an election rule.
Guest Mark Elias states, "the Supreme Court said 7 to 2 that candidates always have standing to challenge election laws. Up until now, candidates had to show just like anybody else a concrete injury."
2Expected 'Tidal Wave' of Litigation
The removal of the concrete injury requirement is anticipated to open 'floodgates' for a massive increase in election-related lawsuits. This includes potential challenges from 'fringe right-wing lunatic candidates' and incumbents seeking to align with specific political narratives.
Mark Elias warns, "So open the floodgates. Here comes the title wave of litigation." He further elaborates on the potential for abuse by "every fringe right-wing lunatic candidate" and "every incumbent uh safe Republican who just wants to do Donald Trump's bidding."
3Strategic Opportunity for Voting Rights Advocates
Despite concerns about abuse, the new standing rule also creates opportunities for liberal and progressive candidates and organizations to challenge restrictive voting laws. Mark Elias, a prominent voting rights attorney, states his intention to use this rule to fight voter suppression.
Elias declares, "Here's my promise to you, Steve Bannon. Here's my promise to you, Donald Trump... I know how to file lawsuits. And we're looking for the voter suppression rules out there... we're going to bring our cases." He later adds, "where we have candidates who say that these rules cause them injury... you guys better get used to seeing me in court and saving me a seat."
4Court's Rationale vs. Reality of 'Good Faith'
Chief Justice Roberts' opinion suggested that easier pre-election litigation might reduce post-election challenges. However, this rationale is criticized for assuming 'good faith' from litigants, a presumption that Mark Elias argues is unrealistic given recent history of election denialism.
Elias explains, "The chief justice who wrote this opinion clearly articulated that it is better to have uh litigation over election rules before the election rather than after the election." He immediately counters, "But here's the problem, Brian. What that assumes is good faith."
5Concerns Over 'Right-Coded Language' in Majority Opinion
The majority opinion's language, such as "Rules that undermine the integrity of the electoral process also undermine the winner's political legitimacy," is viewed as 'right-coded.' Critics argue this language implicitly blames those who question election results (like Donald Trump) for eroding confidence, while paradoxically empowering them with more legal avenues to challenge elections.
Mark Elias quotes the opinion: "Rules that undermine the quote integrity of the electoral process also undermine the winner's political legitimacy." He then asks, "who is it in the last 5 years that has been has been eroding confidence in election results? Like why are these election results why is confidence in these election results faltering? Right? It is it is not because the integrity of the process was undermined, you know, all by itself, right? I would ask the chief justice exactly how integrity of the electoral process uh undermined the winner's political legitimacy. Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because Donald Trump lied through his teeth and continues to lie about it."
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court's decision to grant automatic standing to candidates in election law challenges, while seemingly procedural, is a highly politicized move that empowers partisan actors to weaponize the courts for electoral advantage.
This ruling shifts the burden of proof and access to litigation, potentially enabling a deluge of lawsuits aimed at voter suppression or delegitimizing election outcomes, even from candidates with no realistic chance of winning or no demonstrable harm.
Progressive legal groups and candidates can strategically use this expanded standing to proactively challenge restrictive voting laws and ensure broader access to the ballot, turning a perceived vulnerability into a tool for advocacy.
Lessons
- Prepare for a significant increase in pre-election lawsuits challenging various aspects of voting rules, from ballot receipt deadlines to voter registration processes.
- Monitor election litigation closely, as the new standing rules will likely lead to more cases being filed by a wider range of candidates.
- Support organizations like Democracy Docket that track and engage in election-related lawsuits, as their work becomes even more critical in this new legal landscape.
- Advocates for voting rights should identify and support candidates willing to use their newfound standing to challenge restrictive election laws and promote fair access to the ballot.
Navigating the New Election Litigation Landscape
Identify and track all new election law challenges filed by candidates, regardless of their electoral viability, as these cases now have a direct path to court.
Proactively seek out candidates (especially those aligned with voting rights) who are willing to use their expanded standing to challenge restrictive election laws.
Develop legal strategies to leverage the new standing rules to challenge voter suppression tactics, focusing on rules that cause even minor 'injury' to candidates.
Educate the public and media on the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling, highlighting both the potential for abuse and the opportunities for protecting voting rights.
Quotes
"A blockbuster decision from the US Supreme Court... the Supreme Court said 7 to 2 that candidates always have standing to challenge election laws."
"If you open this up to every fringe right-wing lunatic candidate... you can see where this is going to go. It's going to lead to those kinds of abuses in which Republicans are going to say, you know what, I think this rule allows one illegal voter somewhere somehow. And the next thing you know, you're going to have the federal court swamped with these cases."
"You guys just created a standing rule that, like I said, we're we're going to bring meritorious claims. But where we have candidates who say that these rules cause them injury even though they are in safe elections or for that matter in longshot elections, you guys better get used to seeing me in court and saving me a seat."
"The chief justice who wrote this opinion clearly articulated that it is better to have uh litigation over election rules before the election rather than after the election. So, you know, that's not really a constitutional principle, but but it was a a something that seemed to guide them in thinking, you know what, let's make it easier for candidates to bring these cases pre-election, and that might cut down on post-election. But here's the problem, Brian. What that assumes is good faith."
"Rules that undermine the quote integrity of the electoral process also undermine the winner's political legitimacy. The counting of unlawful votes or discarding of lawful ones erodess public confidence that the election results reflect the people's will. And when public confidence in election results falters, public confidence in the elected representatives follows."
"Who is it in the last 5 years that has been has been eroding confidence in election results? Like why are these election results why is confidence in these election results faltering? Right? It is it is not because the integrity of the process was undermined, you know, all by itself, right? I would ask the chief justice exactly how integrity of the electoral process uh undermined the winner's political legitimacy. Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because Donald Trump lied through his teeth and continues to lie about it."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Warnock UNLOADS on Trump SAVE Act. Calls It a Power Grab to Block Voters
"Senator Raphael Warnock vehemently opposes the 'SAVE Act,' framing it as a politically motivated voter suppression tactic that disproportionately disenfranchises eligible citizens under the false pretense of preventing non-existent voter fraud."
SHOCK Ruling on Trump Deportation PLOT + DEBUNKED Election WARRANT?!? | It's Complicated
"The Fifth Circuit Court's controversial ruling redefines 'seeking admission' for non-citizens, potentially allowing indefinite detention for millions, while a federal search warrant for 2020 election ballots is criticized as a 'test run' for future election interference."
A major shift is happening right now
"Donald Trump is losing his grip on the Republican party and movement, evidenced by internal dissent and a broader political landscape grappling with a collapse of accountability and truth."
HOT TOPICS | WARNING: Donald Trump's Iran War Chaos Has Hit the Point of No Return!
"Don Lemon delivers a scathing critique of Donald Trump's recent actions, framing them as desperate, unconstitutional attempts to consolidate power, undermine democracy, and distract from economic and foreign policy failures, all while questioning his mental stability."