Miriam Seifter and Adam  Sopko have posted this essay to SSRN, which will be published as part of a symposium held by the Illinois Law Review. As a participant in this symposium, I had the opportunity to see an earlier version of this important work. Here’s the abstract:

Election-related litigation is soaring. Litigants regularly challenge every aspect of an election cycle, from who can vote to how votes are cast and counted to the certification of results. Courts have thrown out many of these lawsuits on standing grounds. Given the requirements of traditional federal standing doctrine—including the requirement of individualized injury rather than generalized grievances—these dismissals are at least plausible in federal court.

But most election-related lawsuits today are filed in state court, where standing doctrine is and should be different. State courts are not bound by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, have constitutional commitments to democracy and open courts, and typically have more flexible justiciability doctrines. This Essay urges state courts to build on that foundation through a presumptively permissive approach to election standing. State courts fulfill their judicial role by redressing rather than avoiding threats to state-level democracy. And deciding election-related lawsuits on the merits serves important functions of stability, certainty, and finality, as well as confidence in election outcomes. 

To be sure, the surge in election-related litigation is suboptimal, and some share of the lawsuits are meritless or brought in bad faith. Our argument is simply that standing doctrine is not the best tool for rejecting these lawsuits. The Essay describes other techniques that courts can use to deal with abusive or burdensome litigation without undermining the openness that is foundational to state judicial systems.