Jan. 15, 2026 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
28:28
Supreme Court Changes Election Law Forever
Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks down a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that could fundamentally change how election integrity cases are handled nationwide.Dr. Corsi analyzes the 7–2 ruling in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that candidates for federal office have standing to challenge unlawful election procedures before an election is decided. This ruling directly reverses years of lower-court precedent that blocked election challenges by claiming no one had legal standing. At the center of the case is the issue of mail-in ballots counted after Election Day, a practice Dr. Corsi argues creates systemic vulnerabilities that undermine public trust. The Court ruled that candidates are harmed not only by losing elections, but by unfair electoral processes themselves, affirming that fair procedures are essential to constitutional governance.🔍 Key Issues ExaminedWhy the Supreme Court’s ruling is a major turning pointHow candidates can now challenge election rules before outcomes are finalizedThe constitutional importance of Election Day finalityWhy “lack of standing” blocked election challenges after 2020How unfair rules damage candidates even if outcomes don’t changeThe legal implications for mail-in ballot extensions nationwideWhat this ruling means for future election litigationDr. Corsi explains why this decision opens the door to widespread legal challenges of election procedures that depart from federal law—and why it may finally allow courts to hear evidence that was previously dismissed without review. CN 1 15 (1)The episode concludes with a broader warning about institutional trust, constitutional order, and why restoring transparent, lawful elections is essential to preserving the republic.🌐 Website: https://www.corsination.com📰 Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/🌐 The Truth Central: https://www.thetruthcentral.com💰 CORSI NATION SPONSORSMyVitalC — ESS60 in Organic Olive Oil👉 https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America — Precious Metals Wealth Protection📞 800-519-6268👉 https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/corsi-nation--5810661/support.
I want to comment today on the Supreme Court case that was decided yesterday.
The case is called BOST BOSST et al. the Illinois State Board of Elections et al.
Okay, now this is a case that Bost was a Michael Bost is a congressman, U.S. Congressman since 2015 from the state of Illinois.
Now, this is an extremely important case, and it's not been covered.
It's amazing to me how very little coverage this is getting, but it's an extremely important case because the Supreme Court ruled seven to two that Michael Bost had a right to challenge an election procedure for Congress, the U.S. Congress in the state of Illinois, that will allow over mail-in ballots.
In other words, it granted him standing throughout from 2020 on.
The cases brought before all the courts challenging elections lacked was standing.
The judges, Supreme Court, federal courts, courts all across the board said no one had standing to challenge an election, even when the election procedures were obviously outrageous and needed to be questioned.
Now, this time, this case, seven to two, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.
Okay, so three presidential candidates challenge Illinois' procedure for counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
That was one of the major ways the Democrats cheat.
In other words, they keep the election counting going until they can bring in enough mail-in ballots for the Democrat to win.
And the mail-in ballots, as we pointed out, on God's Five Stones, has G-O-D, no apostrophe to the S, F-I-V-E is palatable, and Stones is plural, Gods5stones.com.
We have all of the proof that the state boards of elections have algorithms in them, codes, allow the creation of non-existent voters, frauds, duplicates, modified duplicates that are then yet legitimate state IDs and are able to be used in mail-and-ballot frauds.
Now, what the court wrote is that Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and receive within two weeks of election day.
Okay, in May 2022, Congressman Michael Bose and presidential election nominees Laura Palestrini and Susan Sweeney, petitioners, sued the Illinois State Board of Election as executive director, claiming that counting ballots received after election day violates federal law.
Okay, and the court agreed that it does violate federal law.
The petitioners had argued that they were entitled to have the election results certified with votes received in compliance with the federal election day statutes.
And they alleged they relied upon provisions of federal and state law in conducting their campaigns, including in particular resources allocated to the post-election certification process.
Boast further explained that the late counting of ballots would require him to, quote, organize fundraise and run his campaign for 14 additional days.
This would cost his campaign time, money, volunteer, and other resources.
And he alleged that he risked injury if ultimately the illegal ballots caused him to lose the election and because his margin of victory might be reduced.
Okay, so it's a direct charge that the open keeping ballots counting mail-in ballots could rig an election.
And the Supreme Court granted Bose standing to bring the issue and agreed with him that the vote counting should end on election day, shouldn't be continued indefinitely.
Now, this is a major case.
What it means is that, and you can challenge it before you lose the election.
In other words, you can challenge these procedures as inherently criminal or wrong, as potentially leading to cheating before the voting is taken.
And this opens the floodgates.
This means that any candidate who in any state where there's mail-in ballots can begin bringing court cases saying that the illegal procedures could be used and mail-in ballots.
And there's plenty of evidence on God's mind stones to support this.
All they have to do is go to that website, cite our cases, take a look at what Andrew Paquette has shown with all these algorithms and begin bringing cases on stolen elections.
Okay, so the district court said that petitioners lack standing.
The petitioners appeal to the seventh court, seventh circuit affirmed the court concluded that the costs to monitor the vote continuing after election day could not support standing because the cost would have been voluntarily incurred to avoid a hypothetical future harm election defeat.
Okay, so it's only at the Supreme Court that the case was heard.
The district court and the circuit court both rejected standing.
They said they didn't have standing.
Okay, so what the court wrote under Article 3 of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have a personal stake in a case to have standing.
This is according to FDA versus Alliance for the Hippocratic Medicine, a 2024 case.
They must, in other words, be able to answer a basic question, what is it to you?
According to Justice Scalia, the doctrine of standing is an essential element of the separation of powers.
This was a law review article he wrote in 1983.
Congressman Bose has an obvious answer.
He's a candidate for office as a candidate.
He has a personal stake in the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
That one sentence is earth shaking, given what the courts have decided up till now.
Okay, so the court ruled, and it's Justice Roberts continuing, an unlawful election rule can injure a candidate in several ways.
It might cause him to lose the election.
It might require him to expend additional resources, or it might decrease his vote share and damage his reputation.
Respondents can see that each of these harms can be legally cognizable, but they contend that Congress and Bost failed to adequately plead any such harm here.
We need not resolve whether respondents are right because winning and doing so as inexpensively and decisively as possible are not a candidate's only interest in an election.
Okay, so they said candidates have an interest in fair process.
Candidates are not common competitors in the economic marketplace.
They seek to represent the people, and their interest in that prize cannot be severed from their interest in the electoral process, a process, quote, of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.
That comes from a 1979 case, Illinois Board of Elections versus Socialist Workers' Party.
Justice Roberts continued, win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law.
Thus, the long shot and shoe-in alike would suffer harm if a state chose to conduct its election, say, by flipping a coin.
The result of such an election would not reflect the will of the people, and the candidates would lose the opportunity to compete for the people's support.
So too, similar harms would result from less dramatic departures.
For example, if a state decided to discard a random 10% of cast votes, whether these decisions help, hurt, or have no effect on a candidate's electoral prospects, they deprive the candidate of a fair process and an accurate result.
I mean, that's just common sense.
But finally, we have a court case decided by the United States Supreme Court that means a candidate can challenge election procedures.
A candidate for federal office can challenge a state board of elections because their procedures are not fair.
I can't believe why people aren't jumping all over this case and suddenly reversing all the legislation we've had, all the judicial decisions we've had since 2020, in which courts wouldn't hear these cases.
Now, suddenly, the cases can be brought.
Chris, I want you to come on and comment because I don't think this is going to be covered except by very few people who really understand the election integrity process.
And then it should be widely covered.
Chris?
Well, first off, you did mention that it was a seven to two decision.
So I can guess as who the two are without even looking.
Yeah, you're probably right.
I mean, you've got, first of all, Justice Barrett and Kagan concurred, but they had different arguments and reasons why.
But the dissent was, of course, by Justice Jackson, who probably Soto Mayor.
And Soto Mayer.
Yes.
Okay, so those are the two who, you know, leftist socialists on the courts.
These are the result of Obama, Biden, et cetera, and then the leftists wanting to pack the courts with people who can't tell who a woman is.
Well, let's also note that these two are also direct beneficiaries, if you will, of the extra ballot counting by certain states, if you will.
Let's keep that in mind.
Yeah, I mean, the whole language here is so clear.
Justice Roberts continued, such harm to candidates is in no sense, quote, common to all members of the public.
Okay, a candidate's interest differs in kind.
An unfair and inaccurate election plainly affects those who compete for the support of the people in a different way than it affects the people who led their support.
We have no occasion to theorize about the significance of the relative interests, okay, which they are held.
In other words, what they're saying is that candidates have much more standing than voters because candidates can lose or have their margins reduced.
And voters, it's really hard to tell who the voter voted for.
And the voter is not harmed the same way a candidate is harmed because a candidate is the one who wins or loses.
The people don't win or lose specifically in terms of their personal lives or their personal outcome.
You know, maybe you don't like a candidate who wins, but that's not what the court considers the type of personal stake you have to have in order to bring a case.
But the candidate has a right to bring a case is, I think, revolutionary in terms of judicial policy.
Chris.
Well, a candidate has always had the right to challenge or have a recount if they're not sure of the election.
So why not ask questions or why not allow a candidate, somebody who has a direct stake in the outcome?
The voters assign it at that point to question exactly how and why the or how these extra mail-in ballots were called or why the count was elongated so much.
It's basically almost the same thing as saying, hey, I'd like a recount.
Well, the court rejected the idea that in order to have standing, a candidate had to show a risk that the rule would cause them to lose an election.
Okay, so in other words, they rejected that.
It said Article 3 essentially means that the election rules have to be fair.
They have to be reasonable.
They have to be, you can't let what they, what they compared this to is, let's say, a hundred meter dash was increased to 105 meters.
Okay, extra days allowed to count votes and they say the fastest to run 105 meters has not won the 100 meter dash.
Maybe they weren't the fastest at 100 meters?
Okay, maybe the candidate that wins the election, the Democrat, didn't win on election day.
They didn't win until we had three more days of counting of illegal ballots from mail-in votes.
I mean, this is This is extremely important.
Okay, so rejecting these claims, what the court is just saying is that even if some candidates could master, muster evidence well before election day that a rule will likely be outcome determinative, respondents to the dissent approach would convert Article III judges into political prognosticators, which they say you can't basically do.
So, in other words, they're not requiring candidates to plead a substantial risk of harm to their vote should the courts not take action.
All they have to show is that a particular rule isn't fair, isn't right, isn't the way the election ought to be held if the election were held legitimately and honestly.
So, therefore, rules that are designed to steal elections that are obviously on their face, designed in order to allow Democrats the right to rig an election, to steal it, can be challenged.
And those mail-in ballots can be the procedures for those mail-in ballots.
In other words, under this decision, you can't extend the counting, the vote counting.
And any state that does so is violating the Supreme Court decision.
Okay, so let's have more challenges to mail-in ballots.
And again, step by step with candidates challenging elections in states where they're obviously rigged to benefit Democrats, cheat and steal an election.
The Supreme Court has authorized courts to overturn those rules, regardless of whether a candidate can show that they were going to lose because of the rules.
They just show that the rules were themselves unfair, Chris.
Exactly.
And what the idea is, they were, as you said, they were set up.
They were set up to allow or just offer the means for preferred candidates, if you will, to find a way to win.
They offered the means to tell the challenging candidate, hey, nope, them's the rules.
The fact is, though, as I stated before, it's not really unlike right after the election when the results come in where candidates say, you know what, I'm not sure these results, maybe they weren't counted right.
I would like a recount.
It's not even different.
The next thing is, how is it that we're at a point where when it was, I don't know, 30, 40 years ago, it took maybe a night, maybe an extra day, if you will, to count election ballots, to count all these ballots.
Now it takes nine, 10 days in some cases.
With computers.
With computers.
Before hand counting, they got the election counted right then.
I'll be rhetorical, but yeah, you're where I'm coming from here.
Yeah, it didn't take all this extra time.
And they were able to get the vote tallied election night.
And there's no reason why that can't be done again, hand counting it.
Now, there's also, I want to talk about Tina Peters.
Again, there was a hearing yesterday, and I'm sure Peter Titkin was involved in it, president's attorney, that to try to get a pardon from the governor on Tina Peters' sentence just being Ridiculously punishing on her because what she did was she essentially tried to allow outside observers to see the stealing that was going on in the Colorado Colorado election.
And so three judges, you know, one attorney for Tina Peters, Peter Titkin, and these judges made it clear that Tina Peters committed a crime and she should be in prison.
And that they all petitioned the governor not to pardon her and to make sure that she said, you know, this is really a Democratic state like Colorado is making it clear, just like Minnesota to the country, that it is just tyrants.
This is people who are intolerant.
They don't want to be seen to be cheating.
And the cheating is massive.
Okay, so in Minneapolis, you've got Tim Wald, who, you know, Walt, this former vice presidential candidate with Kamala Harris, who is saying that ICE are the murderers.
And he's urging people in the streets to receive.
That's a crime that he's committing.
And, you know, you've also then got the Somalia fraud, which is rampant in Minnesota, and, you know, attacking ICE is one way to change the narrative to mask the fact that you've got criminal behavior, billions of dollars being stolen by Somalians,
and nobody's doing anything about it.
Okay, that and you have again this reporter whose name is Nick Shirley.
And what Nick Shirley did most recently, there's an article on Gateway Pundit on it.
It's quite good.
I'll drop it here, Chris, so you can pick it up and show it.
This kind of all goes together because we're talking about Democratic cheating, stealing.
You know, the only way that Democrats can win anything is steal elections, steal money from the federal government, steal money from the border crime laundered through banks to act blue, funding the cut off the Democrats' money, and suddenly their criminal behavior stops because they can't pay for it any longer.
You know, put Soros in prison for his insurrectionist activity.
So what Nick Shirley has done again, and there's a video on it, lasts about 50 minutes, is he found that these Minnesota has a law where this non drivers who are not ambulances,
but who are assisting people in Minnesota who need help, welfare Somalians, et cetera, they can have a business where they get paid transporting people around.
But the businesses don't exist, even though millions of dollars are being billed by these fraudulent businesses who sometimes have up to 20 cars and all they have to do is fill out a floor by the state and they get money.
Okay, so Tim Shirley posted a on, I guess on Acts, saying, after my last video exposing over 100 million in fraud, Tim Waltz dropped his run for reelection and multiple federal investigators were launched to stop fraud across the country.
In this 51-minute video, he exposed another 16 million in fraud as these Minneapolis welfare programs continue to operate fraudulently and steal from law-abiding taxpayers.
So these transportation companies at addresses, he went out to look for them and there's no transportation company, even though they're billing for 20 cars and they get paid, you know, maybe $100 for a car to go to Costco, supposedly so someone could shop and eat or whatever.
And again, there's millions of dollars in fraud, billions of dollars from the Somalis who the ICE is trying to remove.
Now, if the Democrats want to run on this issue to protect Somalian fraud, and that's who to let them stay in the United States, that's a losing issue.
But what I'm encouraged about is finally the Supreme Court is taking a step to give candidates a way to challenge fraudulent election rules.
And this is, to me, a major game changer in that the Democrats out in the streets protesting ICE or not caring that the elections were fraudulent for mail-in ballots, encouraging mail-in ballot fraud to go unchallenged.
Finally, it's coming to an end.
Finally, we're getting a Supreme Court to take action to give standing to candidates.
We're finding that Trump investigators are going to go in and look at this fraud and take somebody like Nick Shirley, young man, to, with his camera, go out and do the reporting that our major news agencies, including the New York Times, not only won't do, but will cover up.
That's the truth here.
And I think we're finally seeing that maybe the country's getting sick and tired of all this Democratic stealing, cheating, lying, and insurrection.
The Democratic Party has not only become a communist party, it has become basically a treasonous party.
And so therefore, I think the American public is catching on.
Chris, any comments?
Well, I know you've been saying this very often, but yes, the Democrat Party has become, well, it's become, let's put it this way.
It's been a globalist party for a long time, and we had the neocon faction of the Republicans, but not even slowly.
It used to be slowly, but not even slowly.
This party has been moving way towards the left.
It's a near communist party at this point.
Gus Hall would be proud.
We'll put it that way.
It's beyond Gus Hall.
This is a treasonous party.
Oh, what they're doing right now is supporting, at this point, they've been rendered to support gang members, child traffickers, just because illegal countries.
And now they're supporting fraud because many illegal and legal aliens have perpetrated these.
And yes, I know there are a lot of native irregular Americans that have done this as well.
But again, these are also being hidden.
They're not being prosecuted.
It's obvious that people in power are allowing this to happen by either helping perpetrate or looking the other way.
Now it's hit ahead.
What does Tim Walz do?
He blames Donald Trump.
Yeah.
Okay.
The Supreme Court case is Michael J. Boss, B-O-S-T, congressman from Illinois, versus the Illinois State Board of Elections.
And seven to two, the Supreme Court said that Bost had standing to challenge a mail-in ballot fraud, regardless of whether it was going to cause him to win or lose.
that simply because the procedure was unfair he could challenge it and then and the court essentially granted him standing and the ruling was absolutely clear i'll read you the concluding paragraph saying quotes courts sometimes make standing law more complicated than it needs to be that's from a 2020 case we decline respondents invitation to do so here As a candidate for office,
Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Okay, so a new day here for challenging elections and one that took a long time coming, but finally the Supreme Court has acted and Justice Roberts, I don't know, seems to have come to his senses a little bit more.
Maybe Donald Trump is aware of how he was blackmailed by Obama.
But the point is, I think Justice Roberts is finally making a few decisions that make sense.
Let's see what he does with tariffs.
That's next.
There's Dr. Jerome Coursey today.
It's Thursday, January 15th, 2026.
In the end, God always wins.
God's going to win here too.
And this Supreme Court decision yesterday is an indication that the Supreme Court is coming to its senses, allowing candidates to have standing to challenge election procedures that are obviously rigged by Democrats to steal elections.
There's Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Thank you for joining us.
We'll be doing these podcasts through the weekdays.
And I'm going to end by, as I always do, by saying 2 Chronicles 7, 14, we need to get on our knees and ask God to forgive us for letting the country get to this place.