Miriam Seifter & Adam B. Sopko, Standing for Elections in State Courts, 2024 U. ILL. L. Rev. 1571 (2024).
Abstract
Litigation has become a fixture of electoral contests. Litigants today
often challenge every step of an election, from the results themselves to picayune aspects of administration. In response to this deluge, some courts
have rejected election lawsuits on standing grounds. Such rulings may be
unsurprising in federal court, given the tension between the federal standing doctrine's injury requirements and the generalized nature ofmany election disputes. But most recent election cases take place in state court, where
neither Article III nor the premises animating federal standing doctrine apply. State courts need election justiciability theories of their own.
This Article explores the role of standing doctrine in the future of
state-court election litigation. Building on existing state practices and state
constitutional principles, we defend a presumptively broad approach to
state-court standing in election law cases, which we term simply election
standing. We find that most state courts already relax standing to some extent in election cases an approach that reflects both the flexible power of
state courts and state constitutions' commitment to democracy. State courts
may be the best (and only) fora able to resolve pressing election-related
disputes and, in turn, to foster certainty, finality, and confidence in election
outcomes.
To be sure, rising election litigation is problematic, and opening the
courthouse doors has downsides. The Article attends to these concerns. For
one, election standing is rebuttable, not boundless, and courts need not
hear duplicative or non-redressable claims. The Article also highlights
tools other than standing doctrine that can help courts mitigate election
litigation burdens. In the end, election seasons may continue to be unfortunately litigious times but state courts generally fulfill their judicial role by
resolving rather than avoiding election cases.
