In a series of legal battles that could reshape how America conducts federal elections, the Supreme Court of the United States has set October 8, 2025, as the date for oral arguments in a historic challenge to Illinois’ 14-day post–Election Day ballot counting law. The case, brought forward by Judicial Watch on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, seeks to align state election practices with federal law, which mandates that federal elections take place on a single, nationally recognized day — the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Judicial Watch’s position is clear: allowing ballots to arrive and be counted days — or even weeks — after Election Day violates federal election statutes, invites confusion, and undermines public confidence in the electoral process. Their argument emphasizes that candidates pour enormous time, money, and resources into campaigns, and have an undeniable interest in ensuring elections are conducted under lawful, uniform rules that protect the integrity of the vote count.
“This is a historic election law challenge,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Too many courts have denied candidates their right to challenge unlawful election rules such as counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity will be watching closely on October 8.”
For full details on voter rights and election integrity initiatives, visit Sustainable Action Now’s voting resource page.
The Illinois 14-Day Ballot Window Under Fire
The Illinois law at the center of the October case allows ballots to be counted if they are received within 14 days after Election Day. Judicial Watch first filed suit over this statute in May 2022, arguing that it conflicts directly with federal law and extends elections far beyond the day Congress intended. The lower courts dismissed the case, claiming the plaintiffs lacked legal standing — a decision Judicial Watch has successfully appealed to the nation’s highest court.
The legal team includes Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General and one of the most respected Supreme Court advocates in the country. Judicial Watch Senior Attorneys Robert Popper and T. Russell Nobile are also involved, bringing decades of experience in election law, civil rights litigation, and voting integrity cases.
Parallel Battle in Mississippi: 5-Day Post–Election Counting Ban Upheld
While Illinois’ case moves toward its pivotal October hearing, Judicial Watch has also been fighting — and winning — a similar battle in Mississippi. Representing the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, the group successfully convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to strike down a Mississippi law allowing absentee ballots to be counted up to five business days after Election Day.
The Fifth Circuit’s October 25, 2024 ruling was a significant victory for proponents of strict Election Day deadlines, declaring that Congress clearly established a single election day for casting and receiving ballots. Mississippi’s attempt to extend ballot counting beyond that date was deemed preempted by federal law.
When Mississippi’s Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, Judicial Watch filed a brief urging the justices to reject the appeal, arguing that extending deadlines opens the door to “fraud, uncertainty, and delay” — the very problems federal law was designed to avoid.
Broader Push to Clean Voter Rolls and Standardize Elections
These high-profile cases are part of Judicial Watch’s nationwide effort to enforce election law compliance, prevent states from extending ballot deadlines, and ensure accurate voter registration lists.
Recent highlights of this work include:
- Oregon – A federal court ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to force the state to clean up its voter rolls can proceed. The case is brought on behalf of the Constitution Party of Oregon and individual voters.
- California and Illinois – Federal courts separately ruled that lawsuits to compel voter roll maintenance can move forward.
- Nationwide Impact – In May 2025, Judicial Watch announced its efforts had led to the removal of over five million ineligible names from voter rolls across the United States.
The organization has also challenged extended ballot counting in California, where current state law allows ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day. That lawsuit, filed in March 2025 on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, seeks to bring California’s practices into compliance with federal law.
Why These Cases Matter for Election Integrity
The stakes in these cases extend far beyond Illinois and Mississippi. If the Supreme Court rules that ballots must be received — not just postmarked — by Election Day, it could set a binding national precedent. Such a decision would require many states to change their laws, potentially speeding up election results and eliminating the uncertainty that comes with prolonged ballot counting.
Judicial Watch argues that the Constitution grants Congress the power to set a uniform federal Election Day, and that this standard is critical to preventing inconsistent rules from state to state. Supporters believe the changes would bolster public trust, while critics warn that stricter deadlines could disenfranchise voters who face mail delays or other challenges.
As the October 8 arguments draw near, both sides are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential election law rulings in decades.
For updates, resources, and ways to take action to protect fair elections, visit Sustainable Action Now’s voting information hub.
