Major Lawsuits Challenging the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election Results
After the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the Trump campaign and its allies filed dozens of lawsuits in multiple states and federal courts, contesting various aspects of the election process . Nearly all of these lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn, often due to lack of evidence or lack of legal standing . Below is a compilation of the major post-election lawsuits, including their case details, claims, evidence, legal arguments, outcomes, and broader implications.
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar (Pennsylvania, Federal)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, et al., No. 4:20-cv-02078 (M.D. Pa. 2020), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This case was later appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 20-3371).
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was the Trump campaign (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.). Defendants included Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and several county boards of election in Pennsylvania  .
Claims Made: The Trump campaign alleged that Pennsylvania’s election procedures violated the U.S. Constitution. In particular, they claimed that some counties allowed voters to “cure” defective mail ballots (by fixing issues like missing signatures) while others did not, resulting in unequal treatment of voters (an Equal Protection claim) . They also asserted that Republican poll observers were not given sufficient access to watch ballot counting (raising due process concerns). The remedy sought was to block certification of Pennsylvania’s results or discard large numbers of mail ballots – effectively seeking to overturn Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania.
Evidence Presented: The campaign’s evidence consisted largely of affidavits from poll watchers alleging they could not properly observe the counting, and general statistics about mail ballots. Notably, the campaign did not present evidence of widespread fraud in this case – the focus was on alleged procedural irregularities. Judge Matthew Brann, who heard the case, noted the suit was supported by “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations” unsupported by proof . No credible evidence was submitted that any cured ballots were illegal or that observer restrictions affected the vote count outcome.
Relevant Laws Applied: The lawsuit hinged on the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, arguing that varying cure procedures across counties created an unconstitutional disparity . Pennsylvania state election code provisions regarding mail-in ballots and curing were also at issue, as was the Electors Clause (Article II, §1) indirectly (the campaign argued that the Secretary’s guidance on curing ballots was not authorized by the legislature). The court examined these claims under established legal standards that require a showing of intentional discrimination or dilution of votes to prove an Equal Protection violation.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: Judge Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, 2020. He ruled that the Trump campaign lacked standing to raise some claims, and in any event the alleged unequal treatment would not warrant disenfranchising millions of voters  . On the Equal Protection claim, the court noted that minor differences in county election procedures do not amount to a constitutional violation – “the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precision in election processes” . The judge found no evidence that any voter or group was treated in a grossly disparate manner. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on November 27, 2020, with Judge Stephanos Bibas writing that the campaign’s claims had no merit: “Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”  The campaign’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on February 22, 2021  , ending the case.
Broader Implications: This case set an important precedent that courts will not throw out lawfully cast votes absent compelling evidence of systemic wrongdoing. It affirmed the principle that alleged administrative inconsistencies (like curing practices) are not enough to overturn an election result without proof of a fundamental unfairness or violation of law . The case also underscored the courts’ reluctance to disenfranchise voters en masse; Judge Brann compared the campaign’s requested remedy (invalidating millions of mail votes) to “Frankenstein’s Monster,” a vast and unwarranted expansion of disenfranchisement on tenuous legal grounds . The Third Circuit’s terse rejection further cemented that post-election litigation must meet high standards of specificity and evidence.
Kelly v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, State)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Kelly, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., No. 68 MAP 2020 (Pa. 2020). This case was filed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and ultimately decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Parties Involved: Plaintiffs were U.S. Representative Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell, and other Pennsylvania voters. Defendants were the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf, Secretary of State Boockvar, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly leaders – essentially the state entities responsible for the election and the law in question .
Claims Made: The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Act 77, a 2019 Pennsylvania law that had expanded mail-in voting. The plaintiffs argued that Act 77 violated the Pennsylvania Constitution, which they claimed only permits absentee voting in limited circumstances (like illness or being out of town) . Because Act 77 allowed no-excuse mail voting statewide, they contended all mail ballots cast under that law in the 2020 general election were unlawful. They sought to invalidate millions of mail-in votes and block certification of Pennsylvania’s election results, or even have the legislature choose new electors .
Evidence Presented: This case turned on legal interpretation rather than disputed facts. The plaintiffs’ “evidence” was the text of Act 77 and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s provisions on absentee voting. They pointed out the huge number of mail ballots (over 2.5 million in PA) and argued those votes should be thrown out as unconstitutional. There was no allegation of fraud – only that the procedure (universal mail voting) had been enacted improperly. The only factual element was timing: Act 77 had been in place for a year and used in the June 2020 primary as well, which the plaintiffs acknowledged. Notably, the suit was filed after the election results were known, despite Act 77 being law since 2019, a delay which became a key issue.
Relevant Laws Applied: The case centered on the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article VII, §14) which enumerates specific excuses required for absentee voting. Plaintiffs argued Act 77 violated this by allowing mail voting for any voter. State doctrine of laches was crucial – laches prevents a lawsuit if the party unreasonably delays in asserting a right. Since Act 77 was passed in 2019, the defense argued that waiting until after the 2020 election to challenge it was far too late . No federal laws were directly at issue; this was a state law question, though plaintiffs did file an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in Pennsylvania, invoking federal jurisdiction to intervene in the state’s election certification.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the case with prejudice on November 28, 2020 . The court’s primary reasoning was laches – the plaintiffs had waited over a year (and through multiple elections) to challenge Act 77, so it was inequitable to invalidate votes after people had relied on the law . The court noted that plaintiffs could have sued before or immediately after Act 77’s passage, but did not. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the requested remedy – disenfranchising millions of voters retroactively – was extraordinary and unwarranted. Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough had initially issued a temporary order halting further certification steps, but this was vacated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision . The U.S. Supreme Court was also petitioned; however, Justice Alito (who handles emergency matters for the Third Circuit) denied an injunction, and the full Court later refused to hear the case, letting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s dismissal stand  .
Broader Implications: Kelly v. Pennsylvania underscored that courts will enforce procedural bars like laches in election disputes. It sent a message that challenges to election rules must be timely – waiting until after an unfavorable outcome to sue is not acceptable . Legally, it upheld Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law and by extension signaled that pandemic-related voting expansions were on solid footing when properly enacted by legislatures. Politically, the case was a high-profile defeat for efforts to reverse election results on technical grounds. The swift dismissal reinforced the stability of certified results and discouraged attempts to retroactively void legally cast votes. The case also affirmed judicial reluctance to invalidate ballots en masse, especially when voters relied on duly enacted law. In sum, the outcome reinforced the principle that remedy for alleged election law defects should be sought before votes are cast, not after voters have lawfully exercised their rights.
Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. (U.S. Supreme Court)
 Case Name & Jurisdiction: State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, Original Action No. 155, filed directly in the U.S. Supreme Court (2020) under the Court’s original jurisdiction for state-vs-state disputes. Texas filed this lawsuit on December 7, 2020, attempting to invoke the Supreme Court’s authority to hear controversies between states .
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was the State of Texas, represented by its Attorney General. Seventeen other Republican-led states filed amicus briefs supporting Texas . Defendants were four key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those states were represented by their attorneys general and governors. (Notably, President Trump sought to intervene in support of Texas as well, essentially aligning himself with the plaintiff’s claims.)
Claims Made: Texas alleged that the defendant states had conducted the 2020 election in an unconstitutional manner, harming the integrity of Texas’s own votes. The complaint claimed that changes to election procedures (often to expand mail-in voting due to COVID-19) violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution – arguing that executive or judicial officials in those states usurped the state legislatures’ exclusive authority to set election rules . It also broadly alleged voter fraud and irregularities in those states (such as improper mail ballot handling, issues with voting machines, etc.), asserting that the results in those states were “unlawful” and should be invalidated. Texas essentially asked the Supreme Court to throw out the certified vote counts of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and prevent those states’ Biden electors from voting, potentially allowing their state legislatures to appoint new electors (which could flip those states to Trump).
Evidence Presented: The evidence was a compilation of claims drawn from various sources and other lawsuits. Texas cited statistical anomalies (for example, late night vote “dumps”), allegations of lax signature verification, and the existence of lawsuits and witness affidavits in the defendant states that claimed fraud . Much of this “evidence” was speculative or already repudiated in lower courts. There were affidavits appended (such as analyses by experts claiming improbably high Biden vote spikes) and references to perceived irregularities (like Pennsylvania’s extended mail-ballot deadline and supposed handling of ballots in Georgia’s Fulton County). However, no direct, new evidence of widespread fraud was presented – Texas largely repackaged allegations from other cases. The defendant states, in response, pointed out that Texas’s claims lacked proof and relied on false or debunked assertions . For example, Pennsylvania’s brief noted that Texas had recycled “misinformation about voter fraud” that had been rejected by every court that heard it.
Relevant Laws Applied: Texas grounded its case in the U.S. Constitution’s Electors Clause (Article II, §1, cl.2) and the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment), contending that the defendant states’ actions (like non-legislative changes to voting rules or differing county practices) violated these provisions. It also invoked Article III (the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over disputes between states). Additionally, Texas referenced 3 U.S.C. §5 (the “safe harbor” deadline statute) – arguing that the defendant states had not legitimately met the safe harbor deadline due to ongoing disputes. Essentially, Texas claimed an interest in the “manner” of election in other states under constitutional provisions, an unprecedented argument.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas’s motion to file the complaint, in a brief unsigned order . The Court held that Texas lacked standing under Article III to challenge how other states conduct their elections, stating that Texas had “not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”  . In other words, one state cannot sue simply because it disagrees with another state’s election results. This lack of standing meant the Court would not consider the case on the merits at all. Two justices (Alito and Thomas) noted that procedurally they would have allowed the complaint to be filed (because they believe the Court must accept cases between states), but they emphasized they would not grant any other relief . No hearing was held; the case was effectively thrown out at the doorstep. This ended the lawsuit, as there is no appeal from the Supreme Court. The dismissal on standing left the substantive claims unresolved, but multiple Justices indirectly signaled that Texas’s claims were extraordinary and unfounded, given Alito and Thomas’s concurrence said they’d hear the case but not grant relief, and other Justices indicated the case had no merit.
Broader Legal & Political Implications: Texas v. Pennsylvania was perhaps the most dramatic attempt to overturn the election, and its failure was a stark affirmation of state sovereignty in elections and the limited role of courts in adjudicating interstate disputes over voting. Legally, the case reinforced that states have no authority over other states’ election procedures – a cornerstone of federalism. The Supreme Court’s quick rejection on standing grounds underscored that allowing such a lawsuit would set a dangerous precedent where states could litigate against each other’s election results . Politically, the case had immense visibility – it was a rallying point for Trump’s allies (over 100 Republican members of Congress signed an amicus brief supporting Texas). The Court’s action (or inaction) sent a clear signal that the judiciary would not be used to nullify election results. By dismissing this case, the Supreme Court preserved the established timeline of the Electoral College (the decision came just before electors voted on Dec. 14). In the broader democratic process, the outcome of Texas v. Pennsylvania showed the resilience of the constitutional system: even the highest court would not entertain a baseless effort to subvert other states’ votes  . The case’s failure also arguably helped defuse what could have been an even deeper constitutional crisis; it left no judicial imprimatur for claims of a “stolen” election. In sum, Texas v. Pennsylvania affirmed the principle that disputes about a state’s election are to be resolved in that state or by Congress during the electoral count – not by rival states in court.
Gohmert v. Pence (Texas/Federal – Electoral Count Challenge)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Gohmert, et al. v. Pence, No. 6:20-cv-00660 (E.D. Tex. 2020), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was heard at the district court and quickly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (No. 20-40843).
Parties Involved: Plaintiffs were Rep. Louie Gohmert (a Texas Congressman) and several individuals who had been slated to be Trump electors in Arizona (the would-be alternate electors) . The sole defendant was Vice President Mike Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate (the official who presides over the Electoral College vote count in Congress).
Claims Made: This lawsuit did not allege voter fraud, but rather sought to upend the established process for counting electoral votes on January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs argued that certain provisions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (specifically 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15) were unconstitutional . They claimed those provisions constrained the Vice President’s authority under the 12th Amendment to count or decide electoral votes. Gohmert’s theory was that the Vice President has sole discretion to determine which slate of electors’ votes to count (particularly relevant since rival slates of GOP electors had met in a few states). The suit sought a declaratory judgment that the Electoral Count Act’s limitations (which require objections to be sustained by both chambers of Congress) were invalid, thus purportedly empowering Pence to recognize alternate electors or reject certain states’ votes. In essence, the plaintiffs wanted the court to authorize Vice President Pence to override or ignore the certified electoral votes from contested states in favor of alternate GOP elector slates, or to throw the decision to the House of Representatives.
Evidence Presented: Being a pure constitutional and statutory interpretation matter, no factual evidence like affidavits was presented. The “evidence” was the existence of competing elector slates (Trump allies in some states had convened unofficially and sent alternate electoral votes), and the text of the 12th Amendment and Electoral Count Act. The plaintiffs pointed to the historical dispute of 1876 and argued that the 1887 Act’s framework (which limits the VP’s role to a more ceremonial one) conflicted with the 12th Amendment. Essentially, they contended the Vice President could decide unilaterally between electoral votes. No witness testimony or documents beyond legal history and congressional records were involved. Pence, through the Department of Justice, did not agree with Gohmert’s position – in fact, Pence’s attorneys filed a motion noting that he was not the proper target of the suit and that the issue was not for the courts to decide.
Relevant Laws Applied: The case revolved around the Twelfth Amendment (which describes the procedure for counting electoral votes) and the Electors Clause theories. The specific target was the Electoral Count Act (ECA), 3 U.S.C. §15, which outlines the roles of the Vice President and Congress in the count. Plaintiffs argued the ECA’s requirement of concurrent House and Senate agreement to reject electoral votes, and other procedural rules, violated the 12th Amendment. The court had to consider fundamental questions of separation of powers and justiciability – whether a court could even intervene in this essentially political process.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: The district court dismissed the case on January 1, 2021, for lack of standing and jurisdiction . Judge Jeremy Kernodle ruled that Rep. Gohmert (as one Congressman) and the alternate electors had no concrete, personal injury caused by the Electoral Count Act – their grievance was essentially that the law didn’t give them the outcome they wanted, which is not a judicially cognizable injury. The court also noted that it was speculative to assume Vice President Pence would do as the plaintiffs wished if the law were struck down. Furthermore, the relief sought (telling the Vice President how to handle the count) raised separation-of-powers concerns. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in a short order on January 2, 2021 . The appeals court agreed there was no standing, and thus no jurisdiction to hear the merits. In effect, the judiciary refused to intervene in this dispute. No court ever reached the constitutional question of the Vice President’s power under the 12th Amendment because the case was thrown out on procedural grounds. Pence presided over the count on Jan. 6 and, as expected, followed the ECA’s procedures.
Broader Legal & Political Implications: Although Gohmert v. Pence was dismissed, it had significant political ramifications. It was one of the last-ditch legal attempts to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s win. The case highlighted the principle that members of Congress cannot use courts to preempt legislative processes – especially when they claim an injury common to all legislators or citizens (which is generally not an injury courts recognize). The outcome affirmed the limited role of the Vice President in the electoral count, by leaving the Electoral Count Act intact and unchallenged . Politically, the failure of this lawsuit (along with others) set the stage for the events of Jan. 6 to play out in Congress rather than court. It underscored that legal avenues to overturn the election had been exhausted, contributing to the pressure and tactics that followed in the congressional session. In a broader sense, the dismissal reinforced that courts will not entertain what is essentially a political question about counting electoral votes at the joint session – that is a matter for Congress and the Constitution, not the judiciary. This case’s failure maintained the long-standing interpretation of the 12th Amendment: that the Vice President’s role is ministerial, not unilateral, in counting votes. It also exemplified the courts’ insistence on proper standing – even a Congressman could not claim a generalized harm to challenge a federal law in this manner.
King v. Whitmer (Michigan “Kraken” Lawsuit)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: King, et al. v. Whitmer, et al., No. 2:20-cv-13134 (E.D. Mich. 2020), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Decided by Judge Linda Parker on December 7, 2020  . (Sanctions proceedings in 2021 followed the dismissal of the case.)
Parties Involved: Plaintiffs were a group of Republican voters and nominees to be Republican electors in Michigan (including Timothy King, for whom the case is named). They were represented by attorney Sidney Powell and others. Defendants were Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, all in their official capacities . The City of Detroit and other local officials intervened as defendants as well, given the focus on Detroit’s votes.
Claims Made: This was one of the so-called “Kraken” lawsuits (a term Powell used) alleging a massive conspiracy of election fraud. The claims were sweeping: that Dominion Voting Systems machines were manipulated to switch votes from Trump to Biden, that large numbers of illegal ballots were counted (including votes from dead people or non-residents), and that election officials in Detroit and elsewhere violated state election laws (for example, by counting ballots multiple times, or accepting late ballots). The complaint alleged schemes involving foreign interference (even mentioning Venezuela and long-deceased Hugo Chávez as purported inspirations for Dominion’s software) and claimed violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses by diluting “legal” votes with “illegal” ones  . Plaintiffs sought extraordinary relief: they asked the court to decertify Michigan’s election results, impound voting machines for inspection, and ultimately declare Trump the winner in Michigan or order the state legislature to appoint new electors. Essentially, they wanted to overturn Michigan’s election outcome which had been certified for Biden.
Evidence Presented: The plaintiffs attached a voluminous set of affidavits and expert reports (over 200 pages) to support their fraud allegations  . Key pieces of evidence included: affidavits from election observers in Detroit who claimed they saw suspicious activity (e.g. boxes of ballots brought in late at night, ballots run through tabulators multiple times, poll workers coaching voters, etc.), statistical analyses by purported experts (one report by Russell Ramsland claimed improbable vote surges and over 100% turnout in some precincts – an analysis later shown to be riddled with errors ), an affidavit from a supposed former military intelligence analyst (referred to as “Spider”) claiming the voting machines were hacked, and even an “anonymous” affidavit from someone who said they were a former Venezuelan official describing how election software could be used to rig results . However, Judge Parker found that much of this evidence was inadmissible or not credible: for instance, many affidavits were based on rumors or observer misunderstandings (and did not actually allege fraud, just discomfort with the process) . Some expert claims were speculative or unrelated (one expert’s “study” had no identifiable author or methodology) . Importantly, Michigan state and local officials provided counter-evidence – affidavits and reports showing that counts were accurate and that the plaintiffs’ allegations were false or misinterpreted. For example, they demonstrated that the supposedly over-100% turnout figures came from confusion between Michigan precinct names and Minnesota data (a clerical mix-up in the plaintiffs’ materials) . The court concluded the plaintiffs’ evidence was mostly “anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis,” failing to substantiate any actual fraud .
Relevant Laws Applied: Plaintiffs raised constitutional claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, essentially arguing that the alleged fraud and irregularities deprived voters of a fair election (thus violating rights) . They also cited the Elections and Electors Clauses of the Constitution (Article I, §4 and Article II, §1) by claiming Michigan officials deviated from the election laws set by the legislature . Michigan state election laws (such as those governing mail ballot handling, vote counting, and certification) were relevant since plaintiffs asserted those laws were broken. However, since the case was in federal court, the focus was on constitutional issues and whether state officials’ conduct violated federal rights or statutes like 42 U.S.C. §1983 (which allows lawsuits for deprivation of rights under color of state law). The court also applied procedural doctrines: standing (did these plaintiffs have a right to sue?) and laches/mootness (bringing the suit after certification). Judge Parker’s decision noted that the plaintiffs, as individual voters or prospective electors, likely lacked standing because their alleged injury (their vote being diluted by fraud) was too generalized, and the relief sought (changing the outcome) would disenfranchise millions of others . Despite these issues, the court proceeded to evaluate the merits as well, “in the alternative,” given the importance of the claims.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: Judge Parker dismissed the lawsuit on December 7, 2020. She found multiple grounds for dismissal: lack of standing, mootness (Michigan’s results were already certified, and the electoral votes already cast when Congress met would make it further moot), and failure to state a valid claim  . On the merits, the court systematically refuted each claim. For the Electors/Elections Clause argument, Judge Parker ruled that even if some guidelines or laws were not followed perfectly, that did not amount to an unconstitutional “modification” of legislative enactments – minor deviations or administrative actions are not the same as the legislature being overridden . On the Equal Protection claim, she found it was too speculative and unsupported – the plaintiffs offered no evidence that any specific group of voters was treated differently, or that any counting errors were intentional or systematic enough to equal a constitutional violation . The judge emphasized that allegations of fraud must be supported by facts: the complaint’s “theory” of a grand conspiracy was implausible and not backed by proof. She wrote that the “right to vote is among the most sacred rights” and the plaintiffs were seeking to discard millions of votes with little to no evidence  . The remedy sought was also deemed unconscionable. The plaintiffs appealed and even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (which denied an expedited hearing on Jan 11, 2021, and later dismissed the petition). In a notable postscript, Judge Parker held a hearing in July 2021 to consider sanctions against the attorneys for filing frivolous claims. She ultimately sanctioned Sidney Powell and her team in August 2021, scathingly concluding the lawsuit was based on falsehoods and that the lawyers had abused the judicial process .
Broader Legal & Political Implications: King v. Whitmer became a hallmark example of courts repelling election conspiracy claims. Legally, it affirmed that fantastical allegations of fraud, when unaccompanied by credible evidence, will not survive judicial scrutiny  . The case contributed to jurisprudence clarifying that federal courts are not venues to relitigate state election results without clear constitutional violations. It underscored the importance of due diligence by lawyers: the sanctions ruling signaled that those who file baseless lawsuits can face professional discipline . Politically, the case (and its “Kraken” siblings in other states) fed a narrative among Trump supporters but simultaneously demonstrated the integrity of the judiciary – even judges appointed by Trump (though Judge Parker was appointed by President Obama) were not convinced by these claims. The outcome and subsequent sanctions likely have a deterrent effect on future attempts to use courts to propagate unfounded fraud claims. In the larger democratic context, King v. Whitmer showed the system’s resilience: courts demanded actual evidence and adherence to the rule of law, thereby helping to uphold the certified election results. It also sparked discussions on tightening rules against frivolous election litigation and highlighted the need for public trust in factual adjudications – the court’s thorough opinion provided a point-by-point refutation that helped debunk many false claims about Michigan’s vote.
Wood v. Raffensperger (Georgia Federal Case)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651 (N.D. Ga. 2020), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and appealed to the Eleventh Circuit (No. 20-14418). The district court’s key rulings came in late November 2020  .
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was L. Lin Wood, a Georgia attorney and Trump supporter, filing as a voter in Georgia. Defendants included Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia State Election Board, and other state officials responsible for election administration .
Claims Made: Wood’s lawsuit challenged Georgia’s handling of the election, focusing on procedures for mail-in ballots. He alleged that a legal settlement earlier in 2020 (a consent decree Raffensperger entered in a lawsuit with the Democratic Party regarding signature verification for absentee ballots) effectively changed Georgia’s election law without legislative approval, purportedly violating the Electors Clause . He also raised an Equal Protection claim, asserting that Georgia’s mail ballot verification (signature matching) was too lenient and treated absentee voters differently from in-person voters (who must show photo ID) – essentially claiming an unfair double standard. Another claim was a Due Process argument that observers and the public were denied a meaningful opportunity to monitor the recount/audit, thus denying transparency. Wood sought to halt certification of Georgia’s results (which had Biden narrowly winning), and later, to invalidate the certified result. In short, he aimed to prevent Georgia’s 16 electoral votes from going to Biden, either by forcing a new hand recount under stricter rules or by having the court block those votes entirely.
Evidence Presented: Wood’s evidence was limited, as his case was brought very quickly (initially to stop certification on Nov. 20, 2020). He pointed to the consent decree from March 2020 between Georgia officials and Democratic groups, which provided guidance on signature matching (for example, requiring multiple reviewers before rejecting a ballot). He argued this made fraud easier, though he did not provide evidence of specific fraudulent ballots. He submitted a few affidavits: one from a poll worker who claimed to have seen suspicious batches of ballots during the recount (alleging pristine condition mail ballots all for Biden), and possibly his own affidavit about being a voter concerned about dilution of his vote. However, no concrete evidence of widespread fraud was presented – the case rested on the idea that the process could have allowed fraud. Georgia’s defense provided contrary evidence: that the audit and recount had been conducted, finding no significant discrepancies, and that the procedures followed Georgia law as modified by the State Election Board’s lawful authority  . The courts noted Wood’s failure to demonstrate any actual instances of illegal voting or wrongfully counted ballots; at best he offered speculative concern.
Relevant Laws Applied: The lawsuit invoked the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause and Electors Clause (Art. I, §4 and Art. II, §1) by arguing Georgia’s executive officials altered election rules (via the consent settlement) without legislative consent . It also cited the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) in contending that voters were treated differently (absentee vs. in-person). The Due Process Clause was mentioned with respect to alleged denial of a fair recount observation process . Additionally, Georgia state law came into play: Wood argued that the settlement’s procedures conflicted with Georgia’s statute that requires voter signatures on absentee ballots to match the registration signature. The concept of standing was central – could an individual voter sue over a generalized election grievance? The court also addressed laches (filing the challenge late, after votes were cast) and the principle that voters do not have a fundamental right to a perfect observation of vote counting.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: The district court (Judge Steven Grimberg) denied Wood’s request for an injunction, effectively dismissing the case on November 20, 2020  . The court found Wood lacked standing – as a single voter, he did not show a particularized injury; his complaint about how Georgia conducted the election was a generalized grievance that courts have long held is not enough to sue . The judge also noted the doctrine of laches: Wood brought the lawsuit after the election, despite the fact the procedures he challenged (like the consent decree) were known well in advance – an unreasonably delayed claim. Furthermore, Judge Grimberg held that on the merits, Wood was unlikely to succeed. He ruled that the Secretary of State’s consent agreement on signatures did not override Georgia law or create an unconstitutional process . The signature review guidelines were consistent with state law (and in any event, the Electors/Elections Clauses issues were for state courts or Congress to resolve, not a federal court to second-guess in a post-election posture). On Equal Protection, the court found no disparate treatment of groups of voters – every absentee ballot went through the same verification steps statewide, and simply being more lenient in matching signatures than Wood would prefer did not amount to a constitutional violation . Regarding Due Process, the court was blunt that there is no constitutional right for members of the public (or even candidates) to audit or observe election processes in a particular manner . The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on December 5, 2020, likewise emphasizing Wood’s lack of standing and the lateness of the challenge  . The appeals court also agreed that Wood’s claims failed on the merits: Georgia officials had not overridden state law (thus no Electors Clause issue) and no evidence showed any votes were counted illegally or any voter treated unequally  . Wood petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, but as with similar cases, the Court declined to expedite or hear it.
Broader Implications: Wood v. Raffensperger reinforced a few key legal principles in election challenges: (1) voters generally cannot sue simply because they dislike how an election was run – they need a specific, personal harm (like their vote not being counted) to have standing  ; (2) courts expect challenges to election rules to be brought before or at least immediately after the election, not after results are certified (the laches doctrine) ; and (3) alleged procedural irregularities must be tied to concrete evidence of wrongdoing or significant effect on outcomes to merit judicial intervention. The outcome showed that even claims wrapped in constitutional language (Electors Clause, etc.) will falter without evidence of actual impact on votes. Politically, this case, like others, demonstrated the judiciary’s unwillingness to disrupt certified results absent compelling justification. It also highlighted the role of state-level agreements and how they were upheld – the consent decree on signature verification was controversial in political circles, but the court found it lawful, which has implications for how far election administrators can go in settling disputes. The case contributed to the broader narrative that the 2020 election challenges failed due to lack of evidence, affirming public officials like Raffensperger who maintained the election’s integrity. In the big picture of democratic process, Wood v. Raffensperger helped set precedent that post-election “fraud” claims must clear high jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles, thereby protecting the finality of election results.
Ward v. Jackson (Arizona Election Contest)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Ward v. Jackson, CV2020-015285 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 2020) on Dec. 4, 2020; appeal as Ward v. Jackson, No. CV-20-0343 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2020), decided Dec. 8, 2020  . This was an election contest filed under Arizona state law by a candidate, with expedited consideration by the state courts.
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party and a presidential elector for Trump. Defendants were Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and the official state canvassers (one of whom was Arizona’s Governor, and another was the Maricopa County Recorder – “Jackson” in the case caption refers to Scott Jarrett, Maricopa’s election director, or another official whose last name is Jackson, named as a respondent). Joe Biden’s electors/intervenors were also involved in defending the certified result.
Claims Made: Ward’s lawsuit was a formal election contest under Arizona law, challenging the certified result of the presidential election in Arizona (which Biden won by about 10,500 votes). The contest focused on two main claims: (1) that there were errors in the duplication of ballots in Maricopa County, and (2) that signature verification for mail-in ballots was handled improperly or fraudulently. When ballots are damaged or cannot be read by machines, Arizona uses a duplication process (transferring the votes to a new ballot). Ward alleged that in this duplication, votes intended for Trump may have been erroneously given to Biden or otherwise miscounted. She also suggested some mail-in ballots with mismatched signatures were wrongly counted. The relief sought was to invalidate enough ballots to erase Biden’s lead, potentially flipping Arizona to Trump, or to set aside the election result entirely. Initially, Ward sought access to examine ballots and envelope signatures to find irregularities.
Evidence Presented: The Arizona court allowed a limited sample inspection of ballots. Ward’s team was permitted to inspect 1,626 ballot duplicates and a small sample of 100 mail-in ballot envelopes with signatures . The evidence from this inspection showed very few errors. In the duplicated ballots sample, they found 9 errors out of 1,626 (for example, votes that were marked for one candidate but duplicated incorrectly for the other). Only a portion of those errors favored Biden. An expert testified that the duplication process was 99.45% accurate, and extrapolating the error rate statewide yielded at most a handful of votes net change – nowhere near 10,500  . On the signature verification front, Ward presented affidavits from observers who suspected signatures weren’t carefully compared, but no specific fraudulent ballots were proven. The court noted that Ward’s evidence did not identify a single ballot that was cast by an ineligible voter or counted illegally; it was largely speculation that some bad ballots might have been counted. The defense (state and county) provided their own evidence: they showed the rigorous steps of signature verification and that the small errors in duplication were corrected during canvassing. In sum, Ward’s evidentiary showing fell far short of demonstrating fraud or errors on a scale that could change the outcome  .
Relevant Laws Applied: Arizona’s election contest statute requires the contestant to prove either misconduct, fraud, or that errors occurred in the vote count that, if corrected, would change the outcome. The burden of proof is on the challenger, typically by clear and convincing evidence. Ward’s claims invoked Arizona election laws on ballot counting and verification. There weren’t federal claims here (unlike some other suits); it was grounded in state law (though indirectly due process and equal protection notions were in the background, they were not explicitly argued since the state contest statute was the vehicle). The courts considered standards like A.R.S. §16-672, which lists grounds for contest (e.g., illegal votes, erroneously counted votes, misconduct by election officials, etc.). No constitutional issues needed deciding because it boiled down to whether the factual evidence showed enough irregularity under state law.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Randall Warner ruled on December 4, 2020, against Ward, finding that she failed to prove her case . The judge’s detailed decision concluded that the evidence “did not show any fraud or irregularity” that would overcome Biden’s 10,500 vote margin . The duplication error rate (99.45% accuracy) was deemed excellent, and the few errors found were corrected or not outcome-changing. On signature verification, the court found no systematic misconduct; mere conjecture by observers was insufficient. In Judge Warner’s words, the evidence presented was “insufficient to establish misconduct or illegal votes” in an amount that could affect the result . Ward appealed directly to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court on December 8, 2020 . The Justices agreed that Ward had not proven any substantial fraud or mistake. They noted that the 0.55% duplication error rate actually demonstrated a high degree of accuracy, and that those errors were random and small . They also emphasized that allegations of larger misconduct (like wholesale signature verification issues) were unsupported. The state supreme court, therefore, confirmed Biden’s victory in Arizona. Ward then sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, filing a petition for certiorari and an emergency motion – but on January 11, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied expedited consideration, and later, in February, declined to take the case, effectively ending the contest .
Broader Implications: Ward v. Jackson is significant as it was one of the few post-election cases where a court actually permitted some evidence-gathering (ballot inspection) before ruling. Even with that opportunity, the challenger could not uncover fraud at any scale, bolstering the conclusion that the election was fundamentally sound . This outcome reinforced the principle that to overturn an election result, extremely strong and specific proof is required – mere suspicion or minor errors won’t suffice  . It also illustrated judicial diligence: the courts gave Ward a chance to make her case, which lends credibility to their ultimate rejection of the claims. Politically, the case was closely watched as Arizona was a tight state; its resolution by the courts helped extinguish remaining challenges to Arizona’s electors. The case affirmed that vote-counting processes can have minor human errors but those alone do not amount to fraud or a reason to doubt the outcome. For future elections, Ward v. Jackson set a precedent in Arizona that contestants must meet a high evidentiary bar. Nationally, it became part of the body of cases showing that even when recounts or audits were scrutinized, the result held, thereby increasing public confidence in the result. The Arizona Supreme Court’s efficient handling of the case also demonstrated the role of state courts in swiftly adjudicating election contests before the Electoral College deadline.
Bowyer v. Ducey (Arizona Federal “Kraken” Suit)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Bowyer, et al. v. Ducey, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02321 (D. Ariz. 2020), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Decided by Judge Diane Humetewa on December 9, 2020  .
Parties Involved: Plaintiffs were a group of Arizona Republican voters and would-be electors (lead plaintiff is named Bowyer). They were represented by Sidney Powell’s team (similar to the Michigan King case). Defendants included Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and the Arizona election officials (plus Maricopa County officials). Maricopa County (which had the vast majority of Arizona’s votes) intervened as well.
Claims Made: This lawsuit mirrored the Michigan “Kraken” case, alleging a broad conspiracy of election fraud in Arizona. The claims were that Dominion voting machines were manipulated to flip votes from Trump to Biden in Arizona, that thousands of illegal ballots were counted (including votes from dead people, out-of-state residents, or fake ballots), and that election officials violated Arizona election laws (for example, by not properly verifying signatures or by destroying evidence). They also claimed foreign interference via Dominion’s software. The legal counts included Equal Protection, due process, and Electors Clause violations, asserting that the election was so marred by fraud that Arizona’s results (Biden’s roughly 10,500 vote win) should be thrown out. They sought an emergency injunction to decertify Arizona’s electors and possibly have the court order the state legislature to certify Trump as the winner or to impound machines for forensic audit.
Evidence Presented: Plaintiffs submitted numerous affidavits and expert analyses, much like in Michigan. This included declarations from poll observers who themselves did not claim to see fraud, but expressed concern about procedures (for instance, one said signatures were verified too quickly, but did not present a single example of an invalid ballot that was counted ). Another piece of “evidence” was an anonymous witness (supposedly a former Venezuelan military officer) who talked about foreign election software manipulation – this was not directly relevant to Arizona’s vote counting and was hearsay. They also offered expert reports that speculated about vote spikes and patterns “consistent with fraud” but did not prove any actual manipulation . One expert’s affidavit relied on an unverifiable study and made claims about voting data without providing methodology . Additionally, a claim of an internet connection to voting machines was made to suggest hacking, but no concrete proof was given. In response, Arizona officials and Dominion provided evidence refuting these claims – showing that Dominion machines are certified and tested, not connected to the internet, and that hand count audits in Arizona counties showed results matched the machine counts. The judge noted that none of the plaintiffs’ witnesses actually alleged firsthand knowledge of fraud; at best they inferred it could have happened  . The evidence was deemed mostly “fictional or spurious” by the defense and the court.
Relevant Laws Applied: The constitutional provisions at play were the Electors Clause (plaintiffs argued that Arizona officials deviated from the legislature’s election scheme by using Dominion machines and not following all rules, thus violating Article II) and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (claiming legal votes were diluted by illegal ones, and that voters were disenfranchised by fraud) . Arizona state laws on election procedure were relevant for context (e.g., statutes on voting machine certification, ballot handling, etc.), but in federal court the focus was whether any state law violations rose to federal constitutional violations. The court also addressed standing (did these voters have standing? Likely not, under usual rules) and laches (suit filed late). In fact, Judge Humetewa emphasized threshold issues: plaintiffs lacked standing to bring generalized fraud claims, and the remedy sought would violate principles of federalism and state sovereignty in conducting elections . Additionally, the court considered the doctrine that federal courts shouldn’t get involved in state election results that are already certified absent compelling evidence.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: Judge Humetewa dismissed the case on December 9, 2020. She found that the plaintiffs lacked standing – they were essentially voters unhappy with the outcome, which is not a particularized injury courts can remedy  . She also ruled that many of the claims were barred by the doctrine of laches, as they were raised after the election and certification despite being based on information known earlier (like Dominion machine usage, which was public knowledge long before Election Day). Moreover, Arizona had already certified its results, so the case was effectively asking for a mass disenfranchisement, which the court was loath to do. On the merits, Judge Humetewa was unsparing: she noted the complaint was based on “nothing but speculation and conjecture” and that the court could not “accept speculation in place of facts” . She highlighted that the affidavits were largely hearsay or irrelevant, and the expert reports were unreliable or failed to demonstrate any actual fraud  . For example, one claim that voting machines were hacked was countered by explaining normal machine processes (like vote tally updates) . The judge wrote that the relief sought – overturning Arizona’s vote – would be drastic and was completely unsupported by the paltry evidence. After dismissal, the plaintiffs attempted an emergency appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court (a petition for a writ of mandamus), which was denied on January 11, 2021 .
Broader Implications: Bowyer v. Ducey was another emphatic judicial rejection of the sweeping fraud narrative. It reaffirmed that courts require actual evidence, not “what-if” scenarios or conjecture, to consider undoing election results . Legally, it contributed to the body of case law that ordinary voters (even if they were would-be electors) do not have standing to challenge statewide election outcomes based on generalized grievances – a common theme across 2020 cases. It also underscored that allegations of electronic voting machine fraud need solid proof; otherwise, courts will not entertain them. Politically, this case (and the similar Powell suits) became known for how extreme their claims were and how decisively they failed. The case’s dismissal, along with the judge’s pointed critique, fed into subsequent disciplinary actions – Arizona’s Bar would later consider complaints against attorneys involved, and the absurdity of some claims (like citing Hugo Chávez) arguably damaged the credibility of the “stop the steal” legal movement. The broader democratic implication is that our court system robustly defended the election result – Bowyer v. Ducey added to the judicial consensus that the election was not stolen or rigged in the way alleged. It also served as a warning that courts may sanction egregious misconduct (as indeed happened to the lawyers in Michigan, and there were calls in Arizona too). In summary, the case reinforced that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and in its absence, courts will protect the certified vote.
Trump v. Biden (Wisconsin Supreme Court election contest)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Trump v. Biden, No. 2020AP2038 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020). This was an original action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court (effectively the Trump campaign contesting the result after a partial recount), decided on December 14, 2020 .
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was President Donald J. Trump (and his campaign). The respondents included Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) and its members, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (the winning candidate, included nominally because the contest concerned his electors)  . Essentially, the defendants were the state authorities who had certified Biden’s win in Wisconsin, along with the Biden electors.
Claims Made: After Wisconsin completed a partial recount (requested by Trump in Milwaukee and Dane counties), the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit challenging tens of thousands of ballots in those two counties. The claims were that certain categories of absentee ballots were cast or counted improperly, in violation of Wisconsin law, and should be thrown out. The four categories were : (1) Indefinitely confined voters – Wisconsin allows voters who declare themselves “indefinitely confined” due to age or disability to vote absentee without providing a photo ID. Due to COVID-19, many more voters used this status in 2020. The Trump campaign argued that many people improperly claimed indefinitely confined status (especially in Dane/Milwaukee), so those ballots (about 28,000) should be invalidated. (2) Ballot drop-box votes – they argued that absentee ballots returned via drop-boxes were not explicitly authorized by law and thus invalid. (3) Absentee ballot applications – Wisconsin law technically requires a written application for an absentee ballot; the campaign claimed that in-person absentee voters did not fill out a separate application (the envelope they signed is usually considered the application), so those ballots should be tossed. (4) Clerical corrections on envelopes – in some cases, clerks filled in missing address info for witnesses on absentee ballot envelopes (as allowed by guidance). The campaign contended any ballot with an envelope corrected by a clerk should be void. Trump did not allege traditional voter fraud (like fraudulent votes) here, but rather focused on these procedural issues. The total ballots at issue were around 221,000 across those categories – enough to potentially overturn the ~20,000 vote margin if all were thrown out. The campaign sought to invalidate those ballots and thereby reverse Wisconsin’s certified results.
Evidence Presented: This case was largely about the interpretation of law, with evidence being numbers of ballots in each challenged category. The Trump campaign provided data on how many voters claimed indefinitely confined status in 2020 compared to prior years (a big increase) . They also identified specific events: for example, they pointed to a March 2020 Facebook post by the Dane County Clerk suggesting voters could use “indefinitely confined” due to COVID – though the Wisconsin Supreme Court had later ordered that advice retracted. For drop-boxes, they presented the fact that many counties used them (encouraged due to COVID) even though statutes didn’t mention them. As for absentee applications, they cited the lack of a separate application document for in-person early voters. The defense (WEC and Biden’s attorneys) provided context: Indefinitely confined: They noted that the increase was due to the pandemic and that each voter signs a statement under penalty of perjury – if the campaign suspected any specific voter was not truly confined, they could challenge those individually, but they hadn’t. Drop-boxes: The state argued the law gives clerks discretion on how to receive ballots (and that drop-boxes are just an extension of the clerk’s office). Applications: They showed that the envelope doubling as an application is a longstanding practice and the campaign never objected until post-election. Clerical corrections: WEC guidance allowed filling in missing witness address bits (like a state or ZIP code) to save ballots from rejection, which had been standard practice. The campaign did not present evidence that any of these ballots were cast by ineligible voters or were fraudulent – their evidence was essentially that these practices happened and the campaign believed they violated the letter of the law.
Relevant Laws Applied: The dispute hinged on Wisconsin election statutes: Wis. Stat. §6.86 (indefinitely confined voters exemption from ID), §6.87 (absentee ballot envelopes and witness requirements), and §6.85 (absentee applications). Also, WEC guidance documents and administrative practices were scrutinized. From a legal theory perspective, the Trump campaign framed it as officials usurping legislative authority (an Electors Clause type argument), but since it was in state court, it was primarily treated as a state law election contest. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also had to consider laches, as these issues were known before the election and no suit was brought until after. Additionally, the standard that an election contest must show that challenged irregularities would alter the outcome was central.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: In a 4-3 decision issued Dec. 14, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected most of Trump’s claims on procedural grounds (laches) and decided one claim on the merits against him . The majority opinion by Justice Brian Hagedorn (a conservative justice who joined three liberal justices) held that the challenges to drop-box ballots, the absentee application process, and clerical corrections were barred by laches: Trump’s team waited too long to object – they could have raised these issues well before or during the election, not after votes were cast  . The court emphasized that it would be profoundly unfair and contrary to democratic norms to throw out votes for rules that were not challenged in a timely manner. On the indefinitely confined voter issue, the court did address the merits: Trump argued all 28,000+ of those ballots should be invalidated because some people may not have been truly confined. The court flatly rejected this blanket approach – they said voters themselves determine if they are indefinitely confined, and even if some may have claimed it improperly, the remedy is not to invalidate every such ballot without evidence on each voter . They noted Trump’s campaign did not challenge any specific voter as improperly confined; they were instead trying to discard all such ballots, which the court found improper. The majority concluded that election officials had followed the guidance in effect and voters followed the rules provided to them; retroactively changing the rules would undermine voters’ rights. The dissenting justices would have allowed more ballots to be questioned, but even they did not endorse throwing out all votes without individual inquiry. In effect, the court upheld Biden’s Wisconsin win. Trump’s legal team sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court (arguing an Electors Clause issue), but the Supreme Court declined to expedite and later denied cert, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling stood .
Broader Implications: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Biden was a significant affirmation that courts will not disqualify large numbers of votes on hyper-technical or after-the-fact objections  . It underscored the doctrine of laches in election law: campaigns cannot wait until they lose to challenge rules they were aware of beforehand  . This incentivizes parties to raise election procedure issues proactively, or else forever hold their peace. The case also clarified Wisconsin law: for example, it effectively blessed the use of absentee ballot drop-boxes and the longstanding practice that an in-person absentee ballot envelope doubles as the application – at least absent prior objection. It also gave a clear interpretation of the indefinitely confined statute: you cannot wholesale invalidate those votes without evidence of individual ineligibility . Politically, this was one of Trump’s last major failures in court; the fact that a conservative justice (Hagedorn) wrote the majority was significant, showing the issue transcended partisanship in the judiciary. The decision likely prevented around 221,000 Wisconsin voters from being disenfranchised, thereby upholding the democratic choice. It signaled to the country that even in closely contested states, the judiciary would stick to principle and not bend to political pressure. Additionally, by concluding litigation before the Electoral College vote (Dec. 14), it contributed to a more orderly completion of the election process. In the landscape of 2020 election litigation, Trump v. Biden (Wis.) stands as a key example of a state’s highest court enforcing both timeliness and merits standards to preserve election results and the rule of law .
Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Wisconsin Federal Case)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, No. 2:20-cv-01785 (E.D. Wis. 2020), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, decided Dec. 12, 2020; affirmed by the 7th Circuit (No. 20-3414) on Dec. 24, 2020  .
Parties Involved: Plaintiff was President Donald Trump (both personally and his campaign). Defendants were the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) and its members, Governor Tony Evers, and other state and local officials involved in administering the election in Wisconsin. This was the federal counterpart to the state suit, but here Trump sued in federal court to raise constitutional issues after Wisconsin’s certification.
Claims Made: In this federal case, Trump did not allege fraud but rather focused on a constitutional argument: that Wisconsin officials’ actions during the election violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The key claim was that unelected officials (WEC and local election authorities) had implemented guidance and policies on absentee voting that deviated from or expanded upon state election statutes, thereby usurping the state legislature’s exclusive authority to set the “manner” of appointing electors  . Specifically, Trump’s complaint targeted things like: the use of drop-boxes, the guidance allowing clerks to correct minor errors on absentee ballot envelopes, the advice that voters could claim indefinitely confined status due to COVID, and the decision to bypass a written application for in-person absentee voting. These were essentially the same factual issues as in the state case, but framed as a violation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The relief sought was similarly dramatic: Trump asked the federal court to declare Wisconsin’s certification invalid, or order the Wisconsin Legislature to appoint electors (which presumably would be for Trump since they’re GOP-controlled). In effect, he was asking a federal court to overturn Wisconsin’s election results on constitutional grounds.
Evidence Presented: The evidence here was largely the record of what WEC had done – all public and undisputed. Trump’s team submitted the WEC’s written guidance documents and memos as evidence. For example, they provided the March 2020 WEC guidance on indefinitely confined voters (which advised clerks not to question voters’ self-designation due to COVID), an August 2020 WEC memo about using drop-boxes, and the WEC manual that says the absentee envelope can serve as the application. They also quantified roughly how many ballots fell into each challenged category (to argue it could affect the margin). No evidence of fraudulent votes was presented, only that, in Trump’s view, these practices were illegal. The defendants did not dispute that these practices occurred; their defense was that all were lawful or at least reasonable interpretations of the law. They pointed out that the Wisconsin Legislature itself had not objected to these WEC guidance measures before the election. The evidentiary record thus was mostly documents and stipulations about the election procedures – a pure legal question whether those violated the Electors Clause.
Relevant Laws Applied: The main law was the Electors Clause (Article II, §1, cl.2) which says electors are appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Trump argued any significant deviation by non-legislative actors violated this clause. Also relevant was the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, though the case primarily centered on the Electors Clause. The defense argued principles of mootness (the election was over and results certified), and they pointed to Article II, §1 but argued that the state’s election laws were in fact followed as interpreted by the appropriate state authorities. The concept of remedies in election cases was crucial: even if a violation occurred, what is the remedy? Federal courts consider whether disenfranchising voters is an appropriate remedy (usually not, absent fraud). Another key legal consideration: the so-called “independent state legislature” theory – Trump’s argument flirted with this concept, suggesting non-legislative actors can’t set rules, but courts typically hold that as long as the legislature empowered officials to act, it’s still following the legislative direction.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig (a Trump appointee) dismissed the case on the merits on December 12, 2020  . In a strongly worded decision, Judge Ludwig wrote that the Trump campaign’s arguments “fail as a matter of law and fact.” First, on standing, he found the campaign did have standing (as a candidate contesting the process), which is notable because many cases were tossed on standing – Ludwig chose to address substance. On the Electors Clause issue, he held that Wisconsin’s election officials had not violated it: the “Manner” of election was set by the Legislature via statutes, and what WEC did was interpret and implement those statutes, not rewrite them  . He reasoned that the state legislature had authorized the WEC to manage elections and issue guidance; therefore, actions like allowing drop-boxes or advising about indefinitely confined status were consistent with the legislative scheme (or at least not such departures as to be unconstitutional). He also pointed out that even if some interpretations were debatable, they were known ahead of time and could have been challenged earlier. Importantly, Judge Ludwig wrote that even if there were a technical violation, the remedy sought (discarding votes or decertifying the election) was far too extreme – the appropriate remedy for issues with state election administration is generally for state courts or legislatures to handle, not a federal court retroactively voiding an election  . He said this would be “perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought” in a federal court. In conclusion, Ludwig stated that the Trump campaign was “not actually asking the Court to rectify a violation of the Electors Clause” but rather to “disenfranchise millions of Wisconsin voters,” which he flatly refused to do. The Seventh Circuit (panel of three Republican-appointed judges) affirmed on December 24, 2020 . Judge Michael Scudder, writing for the panel, agreed that WEC’s guidance did not violate the Electors Clause, noting that the Commission’s actions were consistent with the legislative intent and that the campaign’s challenge was both untimely and without merit. They highlighted that election rules need not be interpreted in the narrowest way possible to satisfy the legislature’s direction – reasonable administrative interpretations do not equate to unconstitutional deviations . The appellate court also echoed that throwing out the election results was unwarranted. Trump’s team sought U.S. Supreme Court review, but as with others, the Supreme Court declined to expedite and later denied certiorari, ending the case.
Broader Implications: Judge Ludwig’s ruling in Trump v. WEC was one of the most notable rebukes of the post-election legal effort, particularly because it came from a judge Trump himself had appointed just months earlier  . Legally, the case set a precedent that state election administrators’ adaptations or guidance – even if arguably going beyond a strict reading of statutes – do not necessarily violate the Electors Clause so long as they operate under authority granted by the legislature . It pushed back against the “independent state legislature” theory by implying that legislature-sanctioned bodies like WEC can fill in details. The case also underscored that federal courts see their role in election disputes as limited: they will not second-guess every state election decision or invalidate votes retroactively, especially when no fraud is alleged. Politically, the decision (and its affirmation on appeal) added to the bipartisan judicial chorus that found Trump’s challenges baseless. The clarity and finality of Judge Ludwig’s language (“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits” ) was widely quoted, reinforcing public perception that the legal claims were thoroughly considered and rejected. In terms of democratic processes, Trump v. WEC affirmed the importance of following established law and not changing outcomes after the fact; it also implicitly praised the fact that election officials expanded access (through drop-boxes, etc.) during a pandemic, by noting they acted within the bounds of the law. Overall, the case’s outcome solidified that our system’s checks and balances held – even a judge presumably sympathetic to Trump’s appointing party ruled squarely against unsupported claims to overturn the election .
Law v. Whitmer (Nevada Election Contest)
Case Name & Jurisdiction: Law, et al. v. Whitmer, et al., No. 20 OC 00163 1B (Nevada District Court, Carson City, 2020), an election contest decided on December 4, 2020; affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court, No. 82178, on December 8, 2020  .
Parties Involved: Plaintiffs were electors for Donald Trump in Nevada (including Jesse Law, Michael McDonald – the state GOP chairman – and others)  . Defendants were the electors for Joe Biden (the named defendant “Whitmer” is Judith Whitmer, one of Biden’s Nevada electors, along with five others)  . Essentially, this was the Trump campaign’s Nevada team contesting the victory of Biden’s electors.
Claims Made: The Trump electors contested Nevada’s election results, which had Biden winning by about 33,600 votes. They alleged an assortment of problems: widespread voter fraud and irregularities in Nevada’s vote. Key claims included: that Clark County’s use of an automated signature verification machine (Agilis) for mail ballots resulted in invalid signatures being accepted (and that using it only in Clark County and not elsewhere was unequal treatment), that thousands of ballots were cast improperly (by deceased people, non-residents, or double voters), that there were issues with observation of the count, and that there were targeted vote “buying” or illegal incentives to certain groups (they pointed to Native American voter outreach programs that offered incentives like gift cards or prize drawings for voting, which they argued was illegal vote buying)  . They also claimed some votes were cast by people under 18 or who illegally forwarded mail ballots. In essence, they argued the combination of these alleged issues called the Nevada outcome into question. They sought to have the court either declare Trump the winner in Nevada or annul the results (which would also effectively deny Biden Nevada’s electors)  .
Evidence Presented: This case is notable as one of the few where an evidentiary hearing was held (in Carson City). The Trump electors presented evidence including: affidavits and testimony from witnesses who claimed to have observed irregularities (e.g., a witness who said they saw a bundle of ballots that looked machine-marked), expert analysis attempting to show non-residents voted (one report claimed over 19,000 Nevada voters also voted in another state), lists of voters they alleged were deceased or fictitious, and images/videos from the Native American get-out-the-vote effort (to support the claim of improper incentives)  . They also focused on the Agilis signature machine: claiming it was calibrated too loosely, thus allowing forgeries. Clark County had used Agilis to sort and initially verify mail ballot signatures at a speed faster than human review. As for unequal treatment, they argued it was unfair Clark County used a machine while other counties did manual verification. The defendants (Nevada state and county officials) rebutted these claims vigorously. Clark County’s registrar testified that the signature match machine was tested and had a very low rejection threshold (meaning it erred on the side of rejecting signatures, not accepting bad ones) . They also noted that courts had already reviewed and upheld the use of Agilis in a prior case (Kraus v. Cegavske in October 2020). Regarding fraud lists, Nevada’s lawyers showed that many claims were unfounded or hearsay (for example, people on the “out-of-state” list included military voters or students who legally remain Nevada voters). On the vote-buying claim, defendants argued those voter raffles were outreach efforts by private groups, and no specific votes for a candidate were exchanged for a prize – plus, no evidence any voter voted differently or illegally due to them. Ultimately, the judge found the evidence presented by Trump’s side to be insufficient and not credible in proving widespread illegal votes  .
Relevant Laws Applied: Nevada’s election contest statute (NRS 293.410) outlines specific grounds like malconduct by election officials, illegal votes, or other irregularities that could change the result. The burden was on the contestants (Trump electors) to prove there were enough improper votes to change the outcome, by clear and convincing evidence. Legal considerations included equal protection (they implied an EP argument about Clark vs other counties using signature machines, but the court viewed it as a state law issue), and state laws on signature verification and voter eligibility. Also relevant was the doctrine of issue preclusion – the court noted that some issues (like the Agilis machine’s legality) had been litigated in Kraus v. Cegavske (a prior state case where a judge upheld using Agilis), and the plaintiffs here were in privity with those plaintiffs (both being the Nevada GOP essentially) . This meant they couldn’t relitigate that issue. Nonetheless, the court still examined the merits of each claim even after noting preclusion.
Court Decision & Legal Reasoning: Nevada District Judge James Todd Russell dismissed the election contest on December 4, 2020  . In his ruling from the bench (and a written order later), Judge Russell held that the plaintiffs had “failed to prove under any standard of evidence” their claims of fraud or irregularities . He addressed each allegation: On the Agilis signature machine and signature matching – the judge found no evidence that the machine’s use led to any invalid ballot being counted; signatures were verified in accordance with legal rules, and using the machine in one county did not invalidate those votes . On ballots from ineligible voters – after reviewing their lists, the court concluded there was no credible proof of a large number of illegal votes (for instance, many “out-of-state” voters were legally allowed, etc.). On vote buying – the court was unconvinced that a voter outreach raffle equated to illegal votes; no direct connection to the vote count was shown. Overall, the court said the contestants did not prove that any irregularities affected the outcome or were widespread enough to cast doubt on the result . Judge Russell emphasized that competitions like this require evidence of specific wrongful votes, and that speculation or suspicion cannot disenfranchise the valid votes. The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously affirmed this decision on December 8, 2020 . The high court’s order found that the appellants had not identified any legal error by the lower court and that even under the most lenient standard, their evidence failed to meet the burden of proof . The Supreme Court noted that even if a lower burden were applied, the contestants did not show any illegality in a volume that would alter the result . With that, Nevada’s 6 electoral votes remained for Biden. (The Trump team had appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court only, as an election contest is a state matter – there was no federal issue to take to the U.S. Supreme Court, and indeed they did not pursue one further.)
Broader Implications: Nevada’s Law v. Whitmer contest was significant for a few reasons. It was one of the more fact-heavy cases where evidence was heard, yet it still came up short . This outcome reinforced that even in a court setting allowing discovery and testimony, the claims of widespread fraud did not hold water. The case highlighted how many allegations (dead voters, non-resident voters) melted away when scrutinized – a pattern seen in other states’ post-election audits as well . It also affirmed the principle that election contests require proof of enough improper votes to change the result; courts will not infer or assume fraud – you must specifically demonstrate it. The mention of issue preclusion (due to earlier cases like Kraus) underscored that many of these post-election claims were rehashing issues already settled, and courts would not endlessly relitigate them. Politically, this case, being the Trump campaign’s main effort in Nevada, showed the limits of such challenges. After the loss, even some Nevada Republicans acknowledged the evidence wasn’t there to overturn the results . The swift affirmation by the Nevada Supreme Court added to the nationwide judicial consensus upholding the election. In terms of impact, Law v. Whitmer helped ensure Nevada’s results were accepted in Congress without much objection (indeed, during the Jan 6 count, Nevada’s result was not seriously challenged). For future elections, the case serves as a precedent in Nevada that claims of fraud must be proven with concrete, admissible evidence and that courts will protect lawful voters’ choice against unsubstantiated allegations. In the broader democratic context, this case – along with others – demonstrated the ability of the legal system to act as a bulwark against attempts to overturn election results without compelling justification .
Broader Legal and Political Implications of the Post-2020 Election Litigation
The multitude of lawsuits filed after the 2020 election – over 60 cases across state and federal courts – resulted in a nearly universal record of failure for the challengers . Collectively, these cases have had several important impacts on American election law and democracy: • Judicial Reaffirmation of Election Integrity: In case after case, courts upheld the validity of the 2020 election results, finding no persuasive evidence of widespread fraud or illegality  . Even judges appointed by President Trump ruled against the claims when evidence was lacking . This near-unanimous judicial response demonstrated the independence of the judiciary and its role in settling electoral disputes based on facts and law, not conspiracy or pressure . It sent a powerful message that the rule of law prevailed: simply declaring an election “stolen” (as the Trump team did publicly) carried no weight in court without proof . This helped validate the outcome in the eyes of many and provided a bulwark against attempts to overturn the democratic process. • High Bar for Evidence in Election Challenges: These lawsuits collectively reinforced the principle that to overturn or nullify an election’s results, the evidence must be extremely strong and specific. Courts required affidavits with firsthand knowledge, credible expert analyses, or clear proof of official wrongdoing – and found virtually none of it. Many claims were dismissed as “speculative” or “unsupported”  . The litigation established (or reaffirmed) legal standards that allegations of fraud must be pled with particularity and supported by admissible evidence. Judges noted that hearsay or conjecture (“could have” or “might have” happened) is insufficient  . This not only decided the 2020 cases, but sets a precedent discouraging frivolous claims in future elections. • Enforcement of Procedural Doctrines (Standing, Laches): Many suits were tossed on procedural grounds like lack of standing and laches (unreasonable delay). Courts held that ordinary voters or even candidates cannot sue over generalized grievances – they must show a particular injury (e.g., their vote wasn’t counted)  . This maintains the principle that courts are not venues for policy disagreements about election administration after the fact. The doctrine of laches was a major factor, especially in state court cases like Pennsylvania (Kelly) and Wisconsin: courts refused to consider challenges to voting rules that could have been raised before the election  . This protects the stability of election results by preventing “hindsight” challenges. The consistent application of these doctrines in 2020’s cases strengthens them as guardrails in election law going forward – future litigants know they must act timely and have proper standing. • State vs. Federal Powers in Elections: The litigation delved into the constitutional allocation of authority in elections. Claims under the Electors Clause (that only legislatures can set rules) were largely rejected on the grounds that election officials’ adaptations (like extended deadlines, drop-box usage, etc.) were within the scope of legislative delegations or were too minor to matter  . This preserved the role of state election administrators and courts to interpret and implement election laws. Had courts accepted the extreme “independent state legislature” theory urged by some plaintiffs, it could have upended how elections are run. Instead, the post-2020 rulings largely upheld the status quo that legislatures can allow officials discretion, and that not every deviation is a federal constitutional crisis . Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Texas v. Pennsylvania for lack of standing reinforced state sovereignty – one state cannot interfere in another’s election   – and underscored that the proper forums for election disputes are state courts and Congress (for electoral count issues), not interstate lawsuits. • Sanctions and Attorney Accountability: A notable development was the willingness of courts to consider sanctions for lawyers who brought meritless claims. In Michigan, for example, Judge Parker sanctioned Sidney Powell and colleagues, finding the “Kraken” suit to be based on falsehoods and filed in bad faith . This signaled that courts may not tolerate baseless allegations that undermine public faith in democracy. Such actions can deter attorneys from filing frivolous election lawsuits in the future and emphasize the ethical duty to ensure factual and legal validity before alleging fraud. The aftermath of 2020 has seen bar associations and disciplinary bodies reviewing some lawyers’ conduct, potentially leading to disbarments or other penalties, which underscores that abusing the courts to spread disinformation has professional consequences. • Impact on Public Trust and Misinformation: While the courts robustly did their job, the sheer number of lawsuits – and their amplification in media – contributed to a persistent belief among some of the public that the election was “stolen.” The fact that all legal challenges failed did bolster confidence for many in the election’s integrity, but for others, the narrative of fraud simply shifted outside the courtroom. This has led to ongoing efforts in some states to conduct partisan “audits” or push restrictive voting laws, citing the very allegations refuted in court. Thus, one political implication is that litigation alone could not dispel all doubts; factual court findings sometimes struggled to penetrate political echo chambers. It highlighted a tension: the courts can declare truth in legal terms, but societal trust requires effective communication and acceptance of those outcomes. • Legislative Responses and Election Law Reforms: The 2020 litigation spree exposed some ambiguities and stresses in election law that legislatures may address. For example, Pennsylvania’s Act 77 faced timing challenges and laches issues – now Pennsylvania and other states might clarify mail-in voting provisions to avoid future legal confusion. At the federal level, the chaotic attempts around the Electoral Count Act (like Gohmert v. Pence) have prompted bipartisan discussion of reforming the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to clarify the Vice President’s role and the process for objections, to ensure a Jan. 6 scenario cannot be exploited so easily again. In 2022, Congress indeed took up reforms to make clear the VP’s role is purely ceremonial and raising the threshold for Congress to entertain objections to state electors. The litigation record from 2020 provides a strong justification for these clarifications, as it showed where bad-faith actors sought to twist legal ambiguities. • Democratic Resilience: Overall, the failure of these lawsuits upheld the peaceful transfer of power in 2020. Judges, often citing the lack of any credible evidence, refused to overturn the will of the voters  . This was a stress test for American democracy, and the judiciary’s consistent response was a key factor in its passing. The broader implication is that our system of checks and balances did work – courts functioned as intended, acting as impartial arbiters even under intense pressure. Many observers have pointed to this as a heartening sign that institutions held. As one analysis noted, “state and federal judges applied the law as they understood it” despite political pressure , illustrating a vital component of a healthy democracy .
In conclusion, the major post-2020 election cases collectively reinforced legal norms and clarified election law in various states. They demonstrated the courts’ role in safeguarding electoral outcomes and set precedents that will influence how future elections are contested (or not). Politically, while they did not convince everyone, these decisions were crucial in enabling the formal processes of certification and inauguration to go forward. The litigation has spurred ongoing debates about election reforms, disinformation, and the balance between access and security in voting. But perhaps the most enduring legacy is the affirmation that allegations of fraud cannot trump the actual votes of the people without convincing evidence. In the words of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.” 
Sources: • Official court rulings and orders from the above cases (federal and state courts)    . • State and federal Supreme Court dockets and opinions, including Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Kelly  , U.S. Supreme Court order in Texas v. Pennsylvania  , and Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Biden  . • Summaries and analyses by legal experts and organizations: e.g., Campaign Legal Center’s compilation of 2020 election case outcomes   , Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project case tracker  , and Brookings Institution commentary on Trump’s post-election litigation . • News reports contemporaneous with the litigation: ABC News, Texas Tribune, JURIST, and others provided context on claims and real-time developments  . These, combined with official court records, give a full picture of each case’s claims, evidence, and outcome.