OPINION:

The COVID-19 panic provided cover for the unhinged expansion of mail-in voting, but that’s about to change. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected the Kafkaesque legal trap lower-court judges fashioned to prevent President Trump and the Republican from contesting the 2020 election result.

Esteemed jurists, often appointed by Democrats, pronounced it “premature” for a candidate to question shady balloting procedures before votes are cast. Thus, all cases opened before Nov. 3 were discarded. After Nov. 3, the same wise magistrates refused to entertain postelection challenges. Once a candidate had won, it was too late to do anything for the loser, they reasoned.

Because every lawsuit Republicans filed was dismissed without being heard, pundits were free to describe 2020 as history’s safest, most perfect election. Social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter used the rulings as a permission slip to boot dissenters from their online platforms, lest malcontents spread doubt and influence future attempts to “fortify” the voting process.

Noting the importance of resolving any disputes before votes are cast, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took the pen in the 6-3 opinion granting Rep. Mike Bost, Illinois Republican, a chance to overturn state regulations that allow tabulation of mail-in ballots received days after the polls have closed.

Mr. Bost insists that federal election law provides for only one day of vote counting, and he has a personal stake in the matter because tabulating bogus ballots would be bad for his career. The decision Wednesday gives him the standing he needs to advance his ongoing lawsuit to ban the counting of postelection ballots, even though he prevailed in 2020.

It is strange that such an obvious issue reached the nation’s highest court, but to achieve their political objectives, activist judges decreed that Mr. Bost lacked standing to impugn the legitimacy of the rules that would decide his fate.

“Win or lose, candidates suffer when the process departs from the law. Thus, the long-shot and shoo-in alike would suffer harm if a State chose to conduct its election by, say, 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,” the justices concluded.

We won’t see improvement overnight. Mr. Bost will be able to present his evidence, and the argument over mail-in balloting will slowly make its way through the judicial machinery once more. The true impact will be felt in the next election, where early objections to suspicious voting schemes will now be reviewed on an expedited basis.

Anyone intending to rig outcomes in 2028 could face additional hurdles if residents in the Golden State bypass the Democratic-run Legislature and mandate voter ID through the state constitution. The group Reform California collected more than 1 million signatures to place a referendum on the 2026 midterm ballot that would require a driver’s license or other photo identification to exercise the franchise.

Swing states Nevada and North Carolina will consider similar initiatives. Passage in the Silver State is almost assured because it garnered 73% support in 2024. Nevada initiatives must pass twice before they are added to the constitution. Such a strong initial showing in California’s neighbor suggests all three efforts have a good shot.

If so, 2028 might replace 2020 as the safest, most secure election in history.