In the pre-argument essay I published on the Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections case, which was argued today, I concluded with the view that the Court would be likely to reverse the lower court and find standing for candidates to challenge election law rules prospectively. Here’s how I ended that essay:

Given the strong institutional imperatives courts face in the election context to settle the rules clearly in advance of the election, the court is likely to find Bost has standing to bring his prospective challenge. But just as important, the precise basis on which the court concludes he has standing will have significant implications for who can bring election law challenges, and when, for the future of election law litigation in the federal courts.

I did not have a chance to listen to the argument, but from the early reports, it appears that commentators believe that’s where the Court is going to end up — holding that Bost has standing. Of course, these reading of the oral argument tea leaves can be wrong.