How would the Supreme Court’s Bost decision change the dismissal rate for standing in future election challenges?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bost creates a clear doctrinal shift: candidates challenging rules that govern the counting of votes in their own elections now have Article III standing at the threshold, which will on its face reduce the share of pre‑merits dismissals for lack of standing in that category of election litigation (courts must credit plaintiffs’ allegations at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage) [1] [2]. The ruling is narrowly framed to candidates and vote‑counting rules, but its practical effect—endorsed by the majority and criticized as opening the “floodgates” in dissent—will be to lower dismissal rates for candidate plaintiffs while leaving non‑candidate and broader taxpayer or public‑interest suits largely unchanged [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Court actually changed: a new baseline for candidate standing
Chief Justice Roberts’s majority holds that a candidate has a concrete, particularized interest in how votes in his or her election are counted, so that an allegation that a state rule injures the candidate’s electoral stake suffices to survive a motion to dismiss and proceed to the merits rather than be tossed for lack of standing [1] [6]. The opinion explicitly limits itself to “candidates’ standing to challenge rules that, like Illinois’s, govern the counting of votes in their elections,” which signals the Court intended a targeted doctrinal rule rather than a carte blanche expansion of standing across all election disputes [3] [1].
2. Immediate practical effect: fewer dismissals at the pleadings stage for candidate suits
Lower courts that previously dismissed cases like Bost on the ground that candidate injuries were speculative or merely “the costs to monitor” will now be constrained by Supreme Court direction to credit candidate factual allegations and draw inferences for standing purposes, so dismissal rates for candidate‑brought challenges to vote‑counting rules should fall—likely substantially—because the threshold inquiry is now satisfied more often and earlier in litigation [2] [6]. Multiple outlets and commentators predict an uptick in pre‑election lawsuits by candidates, and at minimum the percentage of candidate complaints dismissed solely for lack of Article III standing should decline [7] [8].
3. Scope matters: the decision narrows who benefits and how much
Despite the rhetoric about “opening the floodgates,” the majority’s narrow framing matters: the holding is about candidates and counting rules, not every election or administrative challenge, and the Court left merits questions undecided, meaning many suits still will fail later for substantive reasons even if they clear standing [3] [1] [6]. Likewise, concurring opinions point to alternative routes—like recognizing pocketbook injuries for monitoring costs—that could further broaden real‑world access, but those are separate doctrinal rationales that lower courts may invoke unevenly [7].
4. Political and institutional consequences that affect dismissal rates indirectly
Dissenters warned the change will increase the volume of election litigation, encouraging candidates to file early and forcing courts and election officials to litigate more pre‑election disputes; higher filing volume tends to lower the fraction dismissed for standing simply because plaintiffs now meet the threshold the Court articulated, and because judicial resources stretched thin may favor allowing cases to proceed to merits or settlement rather than resolving jurisdictional questions in short order [5] [8]. Opponents argue this will burden administrators and invite forum shopping; supporters argue early resolution stabilizes rules before votes are cast [4] [9].
5. Limits, uncertainties, and what the reporting does not show
None of the sources provides empirical post‑Bost dismissal rates because the decision is recent; thus precise numeric estimates of how much dismissals will fall are unavailable in current reporting, and any forecast must acknowledge that lower courts may cabin the ruling to its facts or emphasize the majority’s limiting language [1] [2]. The reporting does document competing predictions—some see judicial gatekeeping weakened and more candidate suits surviving threshold review, others point to sustained substantive hurdles and narrow application—but no source supplies hard data on future case outcomes [5] [8].
Conclusion: net effect on dismissal rate for standing in election challenges
For candidate‑initiated challenges to vote‑counting rules, the Bost decision will meaningfully lower the dismissal rate at the standing stage by making candidate status a sufficient Article III hook at the pleadings phase; for other plaintiffs or other categories of election litigation, dismissal rates are unlikely to change materially unless courts extend Bost’s rationale or rely on ancillary theories [1] [6]. Whether that doctrinal opening produces a sustained rise in litigated election disputes—or merely shifts contention earlier in the electoral calendar—depends on how aggressively litigants and lower courts apply the Court’s narrow holding and whether subsequent merits rulings or procedural limits curb the surge [8] [4].