N.Y. Times coverage of yesterday’s Eighth Circuit ruling contains this:

‘The decision cast fresh doubt on whether the eventual winners of those elections would be seated in Congress. …

‘Whatever happens now, officials from both parties have acknowledged, post-election lawsuits seem likely. …

‘Officials from both parties have predicted that losing candidates could challenge the general election results in court.

‘“I’m sure there will be some lawsuits” if the older map is used, Mr. Hoskins said in an interview this month.’

Assuming that the older map continues to be used for the general election, as currently required by the Supreme Court’s stay and likely to be reinforced by a new stay from the Supreme Court in light of the permanent injunction required by the Eighth Circuit’s decision yesterday, I’m dubious about the success of post-voting challenges in court to the declared winner of the congressional elections. As the Supreme Court’s decision in Bost made clear earlier this year, it’s better to litigate before rather than after the election, and there will have been the current litigation over the dueling maps settled one way or the other for the purpose of this year’s general election.

Whether next year the House of Representatives itself is willing to take up a challenge to the eventual winner(s) of the affected seats is another matter. But presumably the candidate(s) who received the certificate(s) of election pursuant to state law after all the dust is settled over post-voting litigation will be placed on the roll of Members-elect for purposes of voting in the Speakership election on January 3. After the new Speaker is elected and the House is organized for the new Congress, would there still be an effort to unseat the Member-elect who participated in the Speakership vote because of litigation over which map to use that had been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s series of orders before November (or even October)?