And if we zoom out a bit, we can see that depending on how SCOTUS rules, the case could effectively grant candidates greater power in our political system at the expense of voters—you know, the people those candidates are *supposed* to be working for.

Mail-in voting leads to higher voter turnout, greater voter confidence, and more informed voting, as people have more time to deliberate when casting ballots from home. And as @brennancenter.org shows ⤵️ the US has robust systems to ensure mail voting is secure.

www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

If SCOTUS rules for the petitioners, millions of Americans who rely on mail-in voting could face new barriers to their right to vote, and election officials would face additional strain, as certification would need to happen earlier—despite clear evidence that vote-by-mail strengthens democracy.

Their argument is that this practice unconstitutionally dilutes votes and imposes “campaign burdens.” And while the case turns on a procedural question—whether federal candidates have standing to challenge Illinois' process for counting ballots—its potential implications are very much substantive.

3) Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. This case could undermine mail-in voting—and possibly other state election rules—across the US.

Federal candidates are challenging an Illinois law that says mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted if received up to 14 days after.