David Hoppe contributed to the report. He was the former chief of staff to two Republican majority leaders in Congress and has decades of legal experience in Washington. In short, although Trump clearly lost the 2020 election campaign, he received more judicial support than was generally assumed. This and other factors could indicate a rosier outlook for him in the legal battles over the 2024 election. After the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others was sufficient and lost at least 63 lawsuits[1] challenging the electoral processes, vote counting, and vote certification process in several states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. [2] Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits, some were appointed by Trump himself. [3] The case was an Ave Maria game for Trump, who hoped the court would give him a victory that voters didn`t have. His campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits across the country to overturn the election. Legal experts have criticized the trial, saying it is unlikely to succeed.
[51] [78] Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, and Paul Smith, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, questioned whether Texas was eligible to file a lawsuit, saying the Supreme Court would likely not take up the case. [51] Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, noted, “It seems that we have a new leader in the category of `wildest lawsuits filed to allegedly challenge the election.` [79] The Trump campaign filed most of the post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election in the pivotal states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It was a strategic decision to sue in those states that were too close to call them on election day night and were not called for a few days. “Judge Kavanaugh states that `suspicions of inadequacy` will arise if `absentee ballots are received after election day and can reverse the results of an election,`” she wrote. “But there are no results that can be `reversed` until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be “suspicious” or “inappropriate” than to refuse to count votes as soon as the clock strikes 12 noon on election night. To pretend otherwise, especially in these difficult times, is to deserve the electoral process.
On August 3, 2021, Colorado District Judge N. Reid Neureiter sanctioned two attorneys, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest John Walker, for a “frivolous” election lawsuit filed “in bad faith” that contained “highly controversial and inflammatory” allegations that the lawyers did not attempt to verify. [115] [116] In November 2021, Neureiter ordered the two lawyers to pay $187,000 to the groups they had sued to cover their legal costs and deter similar frivolous lawsuits. [117] Trump`s efforts in electoral disputes have failed decisively, although more judges than is generally assumed have found his lawyers` arguments convincing. The six votes cast by the state court of appeals judges for Trump came from Republican judges, including five at the Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania, one of the state`s two intermediate appellate courts. Most were dissenting votes, but in an unfavorable verdict – Trump v. Boockvar, 12 November 2020 – The then president of this court, who sat alone, cancelled a small number of votes on the basis of erroneous guidelines regarding a deadline for verifying voter identification. This is apparently the most frequently cited victory in the Trump trial. Almost all prosecutions were dismissed or dropped for lack of evidence. [4] Judges, lawyers and other observers described the complaints as “frivolous”[5] and “unfounded”.
[6] [7] In one case, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking re-election collectively lost several cases in six states in a single day. [8] Only one verdict was initially in Trump`s favor: the timing when new voters in Pennsylvania must provide proper identification if they want to “cure” their ballots. This decision involved very few votes[9] and was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. [10] Several lawsuits have been filed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [42] Four of them were still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Of these, two lawsuits were filed after Election Day, and the other two were filed before the election. The lawsuits filed after Election Day were Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al.
and Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al. These two remaining lawsuits were dismissed by the Supreme Court without comment on February 22, 2021. [92] On April 19, 2021, more than five months after the April 3, 2021 election. In November 2020, the Supreme Court refused to hear the ongoing case of former Republican congressional candidate Jim Bognet and dismissed it without comment. [93] The Tribunal`s rejection decision was based in part on the ground that the Claimants should have filed an action earlier. “Given the undisputed public records of the suspension of the duty to testify for postal and mail-in voting, the petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020,” the decision said. He continues: “To make these claims 2 months after the start of the vote, 3 weeks after the end of the vote and less than 24 hours before the State Solicitation Council meets to confirm the results of the election is inappropriate. [87] WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided judges just before the election.
President Donald Trump speaks at the “Stop The Steal” rally on January 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. Trump supporters gathered in the nation`s capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden`s election victory over President Trump in the 2020 election. Trump also said the 2016 Democratic primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., were “rigged” and, as in 2020, he said the 2016 general election race against him was “rigged” before it even took place. Even after winning the election and being sworn in as president, Trump insisted for no reason that more than 3 million illegal votes had been cast against him. A White House commission that Trump had set up to investigate voter fraud dissolved without finding any evidence to support the president`s claims. The “Lost, Not Stolen” report states that Trump`s unsuccessful legal challenges should create more confidence in our electoral security. As Reuters reported here, state and federal judges — some appointed by Trump — have dismissed more than 50 lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies for alleged voter fraud and other irregularities. Jones Day, one of many law firms working for the Trump campaign and specifically aligned with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar,[47] has faced internal criticism for his “short-sighted” litigation efforts that “undermine public confidence in the election results.” [48] [49] Trump, his lawyers, and supporters have falsely asserted widespread voter fraud in public statements,[11] but few such claims have been made in court. [12] All states except Wisconsin,[13] complied with the legal safe harbor deadline of December 8 to resolve disputes and certify voting results. Trump`s legal team had said it would not consider that deadline for the election certificate as an expiration date for his legal dispute over the election results.
[14] [15] [16] Three days after it was filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the U.S. Supreme Court on December 11 refused to hear a case backed by Trump and his Republican allies calling for the rejection of election votes in four states. [17] The State of Texas` application for leave to file a complaint is dismissed due to the lack of standing under Section III of the Constitution. Texas has shown no legally perceptible interest in how another state conducts its elections. All other pending claims are dismissed as contentious. [71] On the 14th. In December 2020, Mark Jefferson and the Wisconsin Republican Party filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine that (1) Dane County does not have the authority to adopt an interpretation of Wisconsin`s election law that allows all voters in Dane County to receive an absentee ballot without photo ID, and (2) Gov. Tony Evers` Emergency Order No. 12 did not allow all Wisconsin voters to receive a mail-in vote. without photo ID.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Jefferson and the Wisconsin Republican Party, declaring that the Dane County government`s interpretation of Wisconsin`s election laws was erroneous. “A county official cannot `declare` that a voter is locked up indefinitely due to a pandemic,” the court said. The court further noted that “. the presence of a communicable disease such as COVID-19 per se does not entitle all Wisconsin voters to receive a mail-in vote. [106][107][108] Michigan Supreme Court justices are appointed by the party to run in bipartisan elections. During the 2020 election conflict, it had four Republican members and three Democrats. A majority of three Democrats and one Republican rejected, without presentation or oral reasoning, the plaintiffs` efforts to invoke the court`s initial jurisdiction to order a review of the votes (Johnson v. Benson, December 9, 2020). A six-judge majority, one republican of which disagreed, rejected a request for immediate and limited review of votes as contentious (Costantino v. Detroit, Nov. 23, 2020). And the court unanimously dismissed an appeal against certifying voters as contentious (Trump v.
Benson, December 11, 2020). Georgia conducted two recounts of the results of its presidential election, both of which confirmed Biden`s victory in the state. Wisconsin had a recount that confirmed Biden`s victory there. On December 4, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of laughter applied to the petitioners` claims against the Secretary of State and that they had enough time to file a lawsuit before the election, but had not done so.
