Always read the decision.

One key component of becoming an informed and involved taxpayer and voter is taking the time to become familiar with reading judicial decisions. Primary source documents help in forming useful questions and evaluating the perspectives of public figures who gain from having their version of facts become accepted truth.

Today’s suggested reading is a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court opinion published Wednesday that will allow U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, another attempt to neutralize Illinois’ mail-in voting law. The opinion itself is at tinyurl.com/BostWins; a Capitol News Illinois summary is at tinyurl.com/BostWinsCNI.

Bost has been since May 2022 a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging a 2015 law allowing officials to count ballots up to 14 days following Election Day. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether Bost and two former presidential electors have the standing to try the case in federal court.

As noted in October following oral arguments, the opinion in Bost’s favor says nothing about the merits of his case but effectively sends us back three years and enables a federal judge to rule on the underlying constitutional question.

One reason to read judicial opinions is a chance to see the future. When the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the issue in July 2024, a dissent from Judge Michael Scudder laid the remand blueprint.

Because he chose “to recruit, train, assign and coordinate poll watchers and keep his headquarters open for an additional two weeks [which] took substantial time, money and resources,” Scudder wrote, Bost has a personal stake distinct from other candidates who didn’t make similar investments – but in common with other plaintiffs allowed to sue based on alleging personal effort to protect constitutional rights unrelated to the enforcement of a specific law.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and his reasoning echoes some of Scudder’s dissent. But he also introduced his own bent, raising concerns about public confidence in election results without fully engaging with whether the root cause of diminished confidence is the mail-in ballot law itself or loud complaints about the law that may or may not be rooted in fact.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the outcome, but she and Justice Elena Kagan said the five majority justices wrongly decided standing came from Bost’s status as a candidate when they could’ve just agreed with Scudder.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said Barrett’s framing rejects the precedent that plaintiffs can’t create standing by opting to spend money based on the chance of future harm.

It’s all deeply interesting, both for Bost’s argument and possible broader repercussions, and diving into the opinions provides insulation from spin presented as definitive truth.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.