Attorneys ‘Very Optimistic’ SCOTUS Will Make It Easier To Challenge Bad Election Laws

The Federalist:

Plaintiffs are feeling “very optimistic” the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in their favor in a pivotal elections case recently heard before the justices, legal counsel and Judicial Watch attorney Russ Nobile told The Federalist.

Speaking with The Federalist, Nobile noted how Paul Clement, who represented plaintiffs before the court, presented “three different options” for the justices to consider on the issue of candidate standing. These key points included arguments that “a candidate has a natural interest in an accurate vote count, regardless of how [the election] works out;” “a competitive injury [argument], [wherein] late-arriving ballots must be considered illegal under the [presented] theory and … will change the outcome of our vote margin, either up or down;” and a “simple injury [argument], in which running the election extra days costs [the candidate] more money.”

Nobile said SCOTUS examined all three points throughout oral arguments, but that “a lot of” the justices’ questions centered on plaintiffs’ “competitive injury” argument about “late-arriving ballots.” He added that while the court appeared “hesitant” on that issue, it seemed “very comfortable with the other two ideas” presented by Clement.

“It doesn’t really matter if you’re gonna win or lose an election. You have, as a candidate, a unique interest that’s recognizable under the law to make sure that your election is run with legal ballots or legal votes,” Nobile said.

Read more here…