@franklucchesesoto.bsky.social
Reposted
Anyway: I tend to think SCOTUS will ultimately uphold state laws that require the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, and that's where the real action is. Today's decision just sets the stage for it.
January 14, 2026 at 3:26 PM
Anyway: I tend to think SCOTUS will ultimately uphold state laws that require the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, and that's where the real action is. Today's decision just sets the stage for it.
Reposted
In dissent, Jackson (joined by Sotomayor) basically says: Why are we making it easier for Republicans to challenge vote-counting rules and other election laws while making it harder for normal people to get their cases heard in federal court? www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
![I am all for simplifying our standing law. See ante, at 10.
But I am against doing so selectively; either Article III
standing requires an actual or imminent injury in fact that
is particularized to the plaintiff, or it does not. Bost has
plainly failed to allege facts that support an inference of
standing under our established precedents. By carving out
a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs—granting them
standing “to challenge the rules that govern the counting of
votes,” simply and solely because they are “candidate[s]” for
office, ibid.—the Court now complicates and destabilizes
both our standing law and America’s electoral processes.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiganrqodm566pnglhzdsv7qi5z6sotx6m4a6ickov757jo6ia4hpi@jpeg)
January 14, 2026 at 3:24 PM
In dissent, Jackson (joined by Sotomayor) basically says: Why are we making it easier for Republicans to challenge vote-counting rules and other election laws while making it harder for normal people to get their cases heard in federal court? www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
Reposted
Tentatively I think Barrett/Kagan are right, but as a practical matter I doubt there's a real difference between their position and the majority's. A candidate who opposes an election rule can almost always articulate some reason why it might incur higher campaign costs and legal fees.
January 14, 2026 at 3:20 PM
Tentatively I think Barrett/Kagan are right, but as a practical matter I doubt there's a real difference between their position and the majority's. A candidate who opposes an election rule can almost always articulate some reason why it might incur higher campaign costs and legal fees.
Reposted
An interesting split: A five-justice majority creates a bespoke standing rule that candidates can basically always challenge election rules. Barrett, joined by Kagan, rejects this, but says candidates have standing when an election rule will require them to spend money (like legal fees).
January 14, 2026 at 3:19 PM
An interesting split: A five-justice majority creates a bespoke standing rule that candidates can basically always challenge election rules. Barrett, joined by Kagan, rejects this, but says candidates have standing when an election rule will require them to spend money (like legal fees).
Reposted
This was a totally predictable ruling and I'm fine with it—it simply sets the stage for the big mail ballot case coming up, which asks whether state laws permitting the tabulation of late-arriving mail ballots violate federal law. (They don't, but the 5th Circuit said they do.)
January 14, 2026 at 3:15 PM
This was a totally predictable ruling and I'm fine with it—it simply sets the stage for the big mail ballot case coming up, which asks whether state laws permitting the tabulation of late-arriving mail ballots violate federal law. (They don't, but the 5th Circuit said they do.)