Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the health-check domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /nas/content/live/brownpelican/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the mfn-opts domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /nas/content/live/brownpelican/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121
SCOTUS: Yes, Litigate Election Rules Before the Election, by Thomas Gallatin – Brown Pelican Society of Lousiana

SCOTUS: Yes, Litigate Election Rules Before the Election, by Thomas Gallatin

Founder’s Quote

January 16, 2026

Fr. Ignatius John Schweitzer, OP: Exegesis of the Word: On the Lamb of God

January 16, 2026

election-fraud-Pexels-copyright-free-image

By Thomas Gallatin, Patriot Post, January 16, 2026

The Supreme Court rules that a candidate has standing to challenge election laws before an election, a big win for setting the rules before the game.

Is it better for a candidate to challenge election laws before or after the election takes place? That was, in essence, the question in the case of Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, on which the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a decision.

The case was brought by Republican Representative Michael Bost, who filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois’s mail-in ballot law. However, the justices weren’t really ruling on the merits of Bost’s case, but rather on whether a candidate has standing to challenge an election law prior to an election.

The Court, in a 7-2 decision, concluded that Bost does have standing. “Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. …

Continue reading >>>>>>>>>>