2020 U.S. presidential election
Timeline 2017–2019 January–October 2020 November 2020 – January 2021 Presidential debates Parties Polling national statewide News media endorsements primary general Fundraising Russian interference Presidential electors (fake electors) Electoral College vote count Presidential transition Subsequent voting restrictions
Attempts to overturn
Protests inauguration week Lawsuits pre-election post-election Texas v. Pennsylvania January 6 Capitol attack timeline reactions domestic international aftermath
Democratic Party
Primaries timeline Candidates Debates Forums Results Positions Polling national statewide Endorsements Nominee VP candidate selection Convention automatic delegates
Republican Party
Primaries Debates Results Polling Endorsements Nominee Convention Reactions to Trump's fraud claims
Third parties
Libertarian Party primaries convention nominee Green Party primaries debates results convention nominee Third-party and independent candidates
Related races
Senate House Governors
← 2016 2020 2024 →

Both before and after the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent president Donald Trump filed a number of lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.^[1] Many cases were quickly dismissed, according to Buzzfeed News,^[2] and lawyers and other observers noted that the lawsuits are not likely to have an effect on the outcome of the election.^[3][4][5] By November 19, more than two dozen of the legal challenges filed since Election Day had failed.^[6]

The Trump campaign suffered several setbacks on November 13. The Department of Homeland Security released a report saying that the election was the "most secure in American history" and that there was no evidence any voting systems malfunctioned.^[7] Sixteen federal prosecutors assigned to monitor the election sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread irregularities. A law firm hired by the campaign in Pennsylvania quit amidst concerns they were being used to undermine the electoral process. The campaign dropped its "Sharpiegate" lawsuit in Arizona. A judge in Wayne County, Michigan, refused to halt the vote count or certification of the winner. In Pennsylvania, judges refused to block 8,927 mail-in votes in Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.^[8]

Four lawsuits brought by conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr. in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were dropped on November 16 after a federal appellate court said voters could not bring some constitutional claims.^[9]

Legal analysis and reactions

Post-election lawsuits

Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said "[t]here's literally nothing that I've seen yet with the meaningful potential to affect the final result".^[10] Ohio State University election law professor Ned Foley noted "[y]ou have to have a legal claim, and you have to have evidence to back it up. And that's just not there."^[5] University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas said the lawsuits "all seem to have no merit whatsoever".^[11] Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in national security, wrote that the suits "continue to defy reason and logic, and are purely theater ... It's all a farce".^[12] University of California, Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen said there is "no evidence of fraud so far that could conceivably affect the election results".^[4] Barry Richard, who helped to oversee the Republican-led Florida recount effort during the 2000 election, called the lawsuits "entirely without merit" and said they "will not be successful";^[13] Gerry McDonough, an attorney who worked for the Gore campaign, said Trump "has no chance of overturning the result—it's just impossible".^[14] The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a statement calling the 2020 election "the most secure in American history" and noting "[t]here is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised".^[15]

Jones Day, one of many law firms working for the Trump campaign and one that specifically handled Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar,^[16] faced internal criticism for its "shortsighted" efforts on litigation that "erode[s] public confidence in the election results".^[17][18]

Summary

Arizona

Pre-election lawsuits

Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs

On June 10, 2020, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in federal court, challenging a state law that requires those who vote by mail to correct missing signatures by election day. On September 10, U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes ruled for the Arizona Democratic Party. On October 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overruled Rayes, finding that the election day deadline to correct a missing signature imposes a minimal burden on voters.^[34][35][36]

Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs

On September 30, two non-profit groups asked U.S. district court judge Steven Logan to extend the voter registration deadline from October 5, the date set by Arizona state law, to October 23.^[26] The groups argued that in light of COVID-19 pandemic, the October 5 deadline is a burden on voters.^[31] Judge Logan granted the request, finding that "[b]allot access is an extremely important right, and it has been restricted during this unprecedented time."^[32] The Republican National Committee joined the suit and appealed Logan’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the court put a hold on the extension effective October 15.^[33]

Post-election lawsuits

Several alwsuits were filed to protest aspects of the election. The last case to be dismissed involved two voters in Maricopa County who complained their ballots had been mishandled; Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney dismissed the case by noting that their votes would not change the results.^[103]

Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes

On November 12, 2020, the Arizona Republican Party filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County Reporter Adrian Fontes, seeking an audit of votes in the county.^[37][38][39] On November 19, 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and the Republican Party's request for an injunction against Maricopa County denied.^[104] In his ruling, Judge John Hannah invited the Secretary of State's Office to seek payment for attorney's fees from the Arizona Republican Party, citing a state law that allows for such awards when a party brings a claim "without substantial justification" or "solely or primarily for delay or harassment."^[105]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs

Centered on a debunked conspiracy theory known as "Sharpiegate",^[106][107] the "Sharpie lawsuit"^[21] from the Trump campaign against Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs alleged that legal ballots with stray markings or bleed-through from markers were being thrown out.^[22] Stories surfaced on social media claiming that election workers were purposefully having voters mark their ballots with a Sharpie so their vote would not be counted. In response, Maricopa County announced that "Sharpies are not a problem for our tabulation equipment, and the offset columns on ballots ensure that bleed through won't impact your vote". On November 4, Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich announced an investigation; the next day, he said "we are now confident that the use of Sharpie markers did not result in disenfranchisement".^[108][23] The rumor was also publicly debunked by the Department of Homeland Security.^[109][5]

The Trump campaign requested that their evidence be kept secret from the public, but the judge refused to allow the secrecy.^[110] The Trump campaign also stated that they had video footage from within a polling area, however, such footage would be illegal if taken within 75 feet of a polling area with voters present.^[110] The Trump campaign attempted to submit affidavits they collected, but admitted that some of these affidavits was "false" or "spam"; the judge refused to accept the affidavits as evidence, calling them unreliable.^[111] Additionally, during questioning, none of the witnesses indicated that they had a basis to believe that their vote was improperly discarded; with the only impropriety raised being election workers pressing buttons for them.^[111]

During the hearing, the lawyer for the Trump campaign, Kory Langhofer, stated that the plaintiffs were "not alleging fraud" or "that anyone is stealing the election", but were disputing "good faith errors."^[112]

On November 13, the lawsuit regarding presidential ballots was dropped, after it became evident that the number of votes potentially to be contested (191) would not overcome Biden's margin of victory in the state (11,414 at the time, with 10,315 uncounted).^[25]

California

Pre-election lawsuits

Gallagher v. Newsom

Two California State Assembly members, James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) and Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), sued Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, claiming that Newsom did not have the authority to issue an executive order (N-67-20, issued June 3, 2020) to mandate all Californians receive mail-in ballots for the November 3 general election by invoking the California Emergency Services Act (CESA). On November 14, 2020, Sutter County Judge Sarah H. Heckman finalized a ruling saying Governor Newsom overstepped his authority in doing so. The ruling also put a permanent injunction on Newsom, enjoining him from "amend[ing], alter[ing], or chang[ing] existing statutory law or mak[ing] new statutory or legislative policy" via CESA. However, since the legislature had overwhelmingly passed a similar law (AB 860;^[113] Sen. 31–7, Ass. 68–5, signed June 18^[114]) after the executive order, the ruling had no impact on the outcome of the election. The main focus was to ensure that the Governor of California cannot use executive power under other similar circumstances by invoking the California Emergency Services Act.^[41]

District of Columbia

Black voter groups in Michigan filed suit in the District of Columbia against the Trump campaign on November 20, 2020, alleging the campaign has disenfranchised Black voters through their attempts to challenge election results in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.^[115][116]

Georgia

Post-election lawsuits

In Re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020

The lawsuit, regarding 53 ballots,^[42] was filed by the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party on November 4 in the Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia.^[1][44] The campaign claimed that two witnesses had seen late ballots being improperly mixed with on-time ballots. Superior Court Judge James F. Bass Jr.^[2] denied the request and dismissed the suit on November 5, after hearing testimony from the chairman of the Chatham County Board of Registrars.^[42] The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late.^[45]

Wood v. Raffensperger

The lawsuit was filed by L. Lin Wood Jr. on November 13 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.^[117] The plaintiff, a part of the Trump campaign legal team, claimed that the balloting result in Georgia was defective and should be either invalidated or modified (i.e. having cured absentee ballots removed) because Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other government officials had no statutory authority to change election law to relax signature match requirement or to allow curing of absentee ballots. These changes to the voting process were introduced as the result of a settlement of an earlier lawsuit with the Democratic Party of Georgia on March 6, 2020.^[118][119] An amended complaint was filed on November 16, 2020 to include additional complaints about the automatic recount process.^[120]

On November 19, Judge Steven Grimberg ruled that Wood lacked standing to bring the case, had brought it too late, and "didn't have the ability to show he could bring a case."^[104] The Trump-appointed judge also found "no basis in fact or in law" to stop Georgia's certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would "breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement".^[121]

Michigan

Pre-election lawsuits

Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Benson

On June 2, 2020, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans filed suit in Michigan's court of claims against state officials, including Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, challenging the requirement for mail-in ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted. Judge Cynthia Stephens granted the request, ordering that county clerks must count ballots postmarked by election day and received up to 14 days after election day.^[57][67] The state appeals court overruled Stephens, writing that the lower court "abused its discretion by ordering the extension."^[68]

Post-election lawsuits

Constantino v. Detroit

On November 9, Republican poll challengers filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court against Detroit election officials, alleging fraud and misconduct during the vote count at TCF Center. Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny denied the petition, finding the “[p]laintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible."^[46] The judge stated that the plaintiffs did not fully comprehend the "TCF absent ballot tabulation process" because they failed to attend a familiarization session on October 29.^[69]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Michigan State Court)

The Trump campaign filed suit in Michigan State Court on November 4 against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson,^[50] claiming its election observers were not allowed to view the ballot count, as required by Michigan law, and asking the court to stop the counting of votes.^[5][122] On November 6, Judge Cynthia Stephens denied the request,^[2] noting in her ruling that the "essence of the count is completed, and the relief is completely unavailable".^[1]

The judge also noted the official complaint did not state "why", "when, where, or by whom" an election observer was allegedly blocked from observing ballot-counting in Michigan.^[123]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Federal Court)

On November 11, the Trump campaign filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. The campaign repeated allegations in Constantino v. Detroit and provided hundreds of pages of affidavits^[124] from poll challengers, seeking to block Michigan's certification of the vote. The case is ongoing.^[125][46]

On November 19, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal^[52] because the Wayne County board of county canvassers met and declined to certify the results of the presidential election. The notice refers to the attached affidavits of Wayne County canvassing board members William C. Hartman^[126] and Monica S. Palmer^[127].

Stoddard v. City Election Comm'n of the City of Detroit

The conservative group Election Integrity Fund filed a lawsuit in the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan asking for a motion of injunctive relief ordering Detroit election workers to stop "curing" absentee ballots.^[128] Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6,^[129] finding that the plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action."^[53][5] The judge noted that "sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but that the "plaintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible".^[130] Following Kenny's ruling, Dana Nessel, Michigan's attorney general, issued a statement saying Michigan has "always been committed to a fair, transparent[,] and secure election that ensures every legal vote is counted".^[131]

Minnesota

Pre-election lawsuits

Carson v. Simon

On September 22, 2020, two Republican presidential elector nominees, James Carson and Eric Lucero, filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that a consent decree entered into by Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and the Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund is unconstitutional. While Minnesota state law requires mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day in order to be counted, the consent decree extended the deadline for mail-in ballots by one week. The district court denied Carson and Lucero's request, concluding the plaintiffs lacked standing. On October 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, finding that “only the Minnesota Legislature, and not the Secretary" could establish rules for conducting elections in the state. The court ordered ballots arriving after 8p.m. on Election Day to be segregated pending possible further proceedings. Secretary of State Simon said votes received after 8p.m. will still be counted unless a court rules otherwise.^[70][132]

Nevada

Two lawsuits were filed in Nevada by November 9,^[10] and another was filed on November 17.^[133]

Pre-election lawsuits

Kraus v. Cegavske

On October 23, the Nevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign joined a private citizen in filing a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of Nevada^[71] against Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Clark County registrar of voters Joe Gloria, citing alleged problems with the signature verification process.^[72] Judge James Wilson^[73] rejected the lawsuit,^[10] finding the plaintiffs lacked standing.^[72] Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada. On November 5, a settlement was filed, effectively ending the lawsuit.^[10]

Post-election lawsuits

Law v. Whitmer

The Nevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign filed Law v. Whitmer^[134] on November 17, 2020 in the Nevada First Judicial District Court in Carson City. The six electors pledged to Biden are named as defendants, and the lawsuit asks to either pledge all six electors to Trump or else to annul the election results. This lawsuit uses "many of the same claims already rejected by local courts in previous lawsuits, including improper use of a signature verification machine and unfair observation rules," according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.^[133]

Stokke v. Cegavske

In November 2020, plaintiffs Jill Stokke, Chris Prudhome, Marchant for Congress, and Rodimer for Congress sued Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Clark County Registrar of Voters Joseph P. Gloria for illegal conduct.

The initial complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on November 5th, 2020, accused the defendants of "illegal conduct" across three counts, including "violations of the Elections Clause", violations of Equal Protection Clause (enforceable under 18 U.S.C. § 1983), and the "violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.8881 and 293.363" respectively.

The complaint cited irregularities in "over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots",^[10] among 15 paragraphs of allegations of violating both state and federal law.

The case was assigned to Judge Gloria M. Navarro initially, and reassigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon after Judge Navarro recused herself from the case on the same day the complaint was filed.

On November 5, 2020, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring defendants from violating Nevada law, the Elections Clauses, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, listing 14 counts, including the use of signature-verification software Agilis in Clark County.^[135]

Plaintiffs additionally filed a motion to expedite the hearing and briefing, which was approved by Judge Gordon on November 6; however he did not agree with the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's conduct inflicted "irreparable" injury to the extent that a restraining order or temporary injunction was justified, and as such, denied the motion on the same day.

Judge Gordon signed an order on November 9, 2020 approving pro hac vice filings in regard to attorneys Abha Khanna, John M. Devaney, and Bradley S. Schrager. Perkins Coie attorneys based in Seattle and Washington, DC required permission from the court before getting involved with the case in Nevada. According to court documents, Perkins Coie was hired to represent the defendants by the Nevada Republican Party and Democratic National Committee.

New Jersey

Pre-election lawsuits

Donald J. Trump for President v. Way

In August 2020, the Trump campaign sued New Jersey state officials in federal court, seeking to overturn an executive order issued by governor Phillip Murphy. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Murphy had ordered that mail-in ballots should be sent to all active voters in the state. The Trump campaign argued that the order violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives power to state legislatures to conduct congressional elections and select electors for the U.S. Presidency. Thereafter, the New Jersey state legislature enacted legislation to the same effect as the governor's order. In September, the Trump campaign asked U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp to prohibit vote counting before election day, and the counting of mail-in ballots that are not postmarked and received after election day. On October 6, Judge Shipp denied the request.^[75]

Pennsylvania

Several lawsuits were filed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:^[10]

Pre-election lawsuits

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar (No. 20-542) is a pending United States Supreme Court case on whether ballots received in the state after 8 p.m. on Election Day should count. It is not confirmed whether the court will rule on the issue. Justice Samuel Alito has ordered all such ballots to be kept and tabulated separately pending the outcome of this litigation.^{[10][85][136][137][138]} See also Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar.^[86] See also Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (No. 20-574), challenging the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that required the state to count absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day, so long as the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.^[139][140]

Post-election lawsuits

Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections

Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and County Boards of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on November 4, by the Trump campaign. The campaign challenged guidance from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, who told voters they had until November 12 to provide proof of identification in order for their ballots to be counted, three days past the deadline set by state law. The judge ruled that ballots are not to be counted if identification has not been shown by November 9. This ruling affected a small number of ballots that were not included in the vote count.^{[46][84][136]}

Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar

Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar is a lawsuit filed on November 9 by the Trump campaign against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The campaign challenged the results of the election, alleging and asked the court to prohibit the certification of results.^[78][79] The Ohio-based Porter Wright Morris & Arthur law firm that represented the Trump campaign withdrew from the case on November 13.^[141] Linda A. Kerns, a Republican attorney also representing the Trump campaign, asked the judge for permission to withdraw from the case on November 16.^[142] See also Pirkle v. Wolf.^[46]

When the judge asked Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on why the plaintiffs did not advance legal claims based on voter fraud, Giuliani replied that "this is not a fraud case".^[143] Giuliani had previously made public claims of "fraud", "absolute fraud" in the election.^[144] Fellow Trump lawyer Linda Kerns also agreed that this lawsuit was not based on "allegations of fraud or misconduct".^[145]

Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations."^[146][147]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of Elections

Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Bucks County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the state's trial court on November 9.^[46] The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots".^[145] They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings.^[145]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections

Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the state's trial court on November 5, in which the Trump campaign sought to stop Montgomery County from counting ballots. The county's Board of Elections allowed about 600 voters to fill in missing information on ballot envelopes before Election Day. The campaign argued for the ballots to be disqualified, but the judge ruled the instructions provided to voters were consistent with election law.^[46][148]

During the hearing, the judge asked the lawyer for the Trump campaign, Jonathan Goldstein, if Goldstein was "claiming that there is any fraud" or "any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots". Goldstein replied no. This contradicted Trump's claim of widespread voter fraud.^[149]

Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of Elections

Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in federal court on November 5, in which the Trump campaign sought to stop ballot counting in Philadelphia. The campaign argued that poll observers were not allowed in the counting room, but later admitted some observers were present. No ballots were at issue, and the case was settled upon mutual party agreement that Republicans and Democrats could have each have up to 60 poll watchers present to observe vote counting.^[136][150] The admission that Trump's observers were in the counting room contradicted Trump's later claims that his observers were prevented from entering vote counting rooms in Pennsylvania.^[145]

Hamm v. Boockvar

Hamm v. Boockvar is a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on November 3. Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, issued guidance that local election officials could allow voters who cast defective ballots to re-do their vote by casting a provisional ballot. The plaintiffs, several candidates who ran for office, argued that such guidance is illegal. The court ordered counties to set aside any provisional ballots cast by voters who sought to remedy defective initial ballots, and said it would rule on those ballots' validity at a later date.^[89][90][91]

In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election

In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, General Election is a lawsuit filed in the state's trial court on November 10, in which the Trump campaign sought to disqualify over 8,000 absentee ballots counted by state officials. The ballots had outer envelopes which were signed by the voters but lacked other information. The judge denied all challenges to the ballots.^[46] Judge Robert Baldi ruled that throwing out the absentee ballots would disenfranchise voters, and ordered the 2,000+ ballots in question be counted.^[104]

In re: Canvassing Observation

In re: Canvassing Observation is a lawsuit filed on November 3, in which the Trump campaign sought closer access for poll observers to watch vote counting. The trial court ruled against the campaign, that a 15 feet distance was adequate. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sided with the campaign and ordered that poll observers be allowed to watch from a distance of 6 feet. On November 9, the state filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.^{[46][136][150][151][152]} The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide. Chief Justice Thomas Saylor dissented, saying he would have declared the issue moot.^[153] The next day, November 18, the Trump campaign asked U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann to permit them to update the lawsuit. They asked Brann to declare Pennsylvania's election results “defective," to block the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's certification of the election results, and to order that the Pennsylvania legislature (which is Republican-controlled) be given power to appoint the electors.^[154]

The Judge threw the case out on December 21.^[155]

Texas

Several lawsuits were filed in Texas prior to the election.

Pre-election lawsuits

Harris County drive-through voting suits

A number of lawsuits were brought against Harris County, the state's most populous county, challenging its drive-thru voting system set up as one of an array of measures to mitigate COVID-19 infection risk. Joe Straus, a former Republican Speaker of the Texas House, called the lawsuits "patently wrong".^[95]

Hotze v. Hollins

This action was filed on October 28, 2020 in federal court in Houston by Republican activist Steven Hotze and GOP candidates.^[156][157] U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen dismissed the complaint on November 2,^[94] finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It was also reported that he stated during the remotely-conducted motion hearing that the Republicans needed to prove an "evil motive" to have the ballots thrown out and finding that they failed to do so.^{[158][159][160]} An emergency motion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was unsuccessful.^[94]

In re Steven Hotze, M.D., Harris County Republican Party, Hon. Keith Nielsen, and Sharon Hemphill

The Harris County Republican Party was joined by others in filing a mandamus petition with the Texas Supreme Court asking for a stop to drive-through voting in Harris County. The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition on October 22, 2020.^[95]

In re Steven Hotze, M.D., Wendell Champion, Hon. Steven Toth, and Sharon Hemphill

Nearly identical to the previous petition, this original proceeding was filed in the Texas Supreme Court on October 27, 2020.^[161] The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate almost 127,000 votes already cast via drive-through facilities.^[162][163] This motion was denied by the Texas Supreme Court on November 1, 2020.^[95]

Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott

On April 7, 2020, the Texas Democratic Party and several voters filed a lawsuit against state officials in federal court, seeking to change Texas state law that requires voters under age 65 to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail. In May, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail, ruling that the state's differing treatment of voters based on age violated the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On June 4, a motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put a hold on Judge Biery's ruling pending appeal. The Texas Democratic Party then filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for Judge Biery's ruling to be reinstated, but the justices denied the petition. On September 10, a different panel of the 5th Circuit issued a lengthy merits opinion that vacated Judge Biery's preliminary injunction, finding that the Texas law limiting no-excuse mail-in voting did not violate the Twenty-sixth Amendment. The court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings on legal claims that the appeals court had not reached, including an equal protection challenge to the differential treatment of voters based on their age under pandemic conditions.

Texas League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott

On October 1, 2020, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the National League of United Latin American Citizens, plus the League of Women Voters and two Texas voters, filed a lawsuit against Texas Governor Greg Abbott in federal district court. The groups sought to block the Governor's order limiting the number of absentee ballot drop-off sites to one per county, arguing that the order violated the U.S. Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act because it imposed burdens on older, sick, and disabled voters and disproportionately affected more populous counties.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman agreed and enjoined enforcement of the limit on drop-off sites. On appeal, a motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the state, finding that the Governor's order "abridges no one's right to vote". The court placed an immediate stay on Judge Pittman's order, allowing the limit on drop-off sites to remain in place through the remainder of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election season.^[96][97] The Texas Supreme Court followed the Fifth Circuit in denying a similar challenge by different plaintiffs in a parallel case litigated in state court, although the latter relied on state law, rather than federal law.

Washington

Pre-election lawsuits

Washington v. Trump

State of Washington v. Trump (No. 1:20-cv-03127)^[100] hinged on whether recent changes announced to the United States Postal Service violate federal administrative rulemaking requirements and infringe upon the rights of states to regulate elections under the Constitution.^[99] On October 30, 2020 the court issued an order^[164] regarding election mail.

Wisconsin

Post-election lawsuits

Langenhorst v. Pecore

Three residents filed a lawsuit against clerks in Menominee County, Dane County, and Milwaukee County in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division on November 11, 2020. The plaintiffs questioned the three counties that included a pandemic scenario in the definition of "indefinitely confined voters". Despite the State Supreme Court's ruling that the "advice was legally incorrect", this interpretation still caused a surge in absentee ballots this year. Additionally, the witness signature requirement was also relaxed. As the result, the plaintiffs wanted the ballots in the 3 counties (estimated 800,000 ballots) invalidated.^[165][166] The plaintiffs dropped the suit on November 16.^[9]

Other

The Trump campaign filed a number of lawsuits related to other issues. In one, an unnamed individual alleged the Wisconsin Elections Commission had sent another unnamed person ten absentee ballots, although the Elections Commission does not send out absentee ballots.^[167] In another, the Trump campaign sued because three people who legally cast absentee ballots prior to election day died in the interim. "They all died after they voted, so they were alive when they voted, and they died in the interim. With the coronavirus raging, it should not be a particular surprise to anyone. But also, that's really normal. People die. People die every month in the state of Wisconsin," said Ann Jacobs of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.^[167]

References

External links

• Voting Rights Litigation 2020 at the Brennan Center for Justice
• Overview of active cases at Democracy Docket
• COVID-Related Election Litigation Tracker at the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
• 2020 Election Litigation Tracker at SCOTUSblog