Justice Kagan Questions 'Injury' Standard in Mail-In Voting Standing Case

Standing Doctrine and Injury Requirement

• ⚖️ Justice Kagan questions the lawyer's argument, suggesting it might bypass the established injury requirement for standing.
• 💡 The court's previous rejection of broad standing rules, like "doctor standing," is cited as precedent against automatic candidate standing.
• 📌 The lawyer proposes that a rule allowing more mail-in ballots inherently creates an electoral disadvantage for a candidate.

Candidate Standing and Electoral Disadvantage

• 🎯 The core of the debate revolves around what constitutes a sufficient "injury in fact" for a candidate suing over election rules.
• ❓ Kagan expresses discomfort with the idea that a candidate's mere assertion of disadvantage is enough, preferring a more concrete showing of risk.
• 🚀 The lawyer argues that the prospect of competing expert affidavits on how late ballots affect elections is an uncomfortable one, preferring a clearer rule.

Rejection of Broad Standing Views

• 🚫 The court has largely rejected the view that a candidate's mere presence or assertion of potential harm is sufficient for standing.
• ⚠️ The lawyer acknowledges that the injury in fact requirement is not being eliminated but redefined to include unlawful ballots being counted.
• ✅ The discussion highlights the tension between a high bar for standing and the desire to avoid complex, speculative litigation over election rule impacts.