 2020 U.S. presidential election | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attempts to overturn | |||
| Democratic Party | |||
| Republican Party | |||
| Third parties | |||
| Related races | |||
| |||
Before Election Day of the2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to theCOVID-19 pandemic.
Prior to the 2020 United States presidential election, theCOVID-19 pandemic caused many states to adjust their voting rules and processes. Litigation was initiated by Democrats, seeking measures to ease voting, and Republicans, seeking to block such measures.[1][2][3] "[O]ver 230 election-related federal lawsuits were filed from January 1 to October 23, higher than any of the past three presidential election years during the same time period", according to aUSA Today analysis.[2] Issues related tomail-in and curbside voting,early voting,voter registration, photo ID and witness signature requirements, andvoting rights for convicted felons.[3]
Throughout 2020, theSupreme Court issued at least a dozen orders related to the 2020 primary and general elections.[4] The court's conservative justices have objected to last-minute changes to elections that are ordered by federal judges, saying the power to administer elections lies solely with state legislatures;[4][5][6] the court's liberal justices have favored the loosening of election rules. The deciding vote has often fallen toChief JusticeJohn Roberts, according toJonathan Adler, a professor at theCase Western Reserve University School of Law.[4] Under Roberts, the court has focused on keeping federal courts out of state elections, and has consistently treated election changes made by state judges or officials more leniently than those made by federal courts.[5]
| Dismissed | Decision appealed | Ongoing | Ruled | |
| Count | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 |
| State | First filing date | Case | Court | Docket no(s). | Outcome | Comments | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | September 30, 2020 | Mi Familia Vota v. Hobbs | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit | 2:20-cv-01903-SPL (D. Ariz.) 20-16932; 20-17000 (9th Cir.) | Ruled | Two non-profit voter registration groups, the Arizona Coalition for Change and Mi Familia Vota, filed a motion asking the voter-registration deadline of October 5, 2020, be moved due to the COVID-19 pandemic; after opposing responses from Arizona secretary of stateKatie Hobbs and theRepublican National Committee, Judge Steven Logan extended the deadline to October 23. The same day, October 5, Hobbs and the RNC appealed to the 9th Circuit, which placed a stay on Logan's extended deadline effective October 15. On October 13, Judge Fletcher and Bybee ordered that those who registered after October 5 were not eligible to vote in the November election. | [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] |
| Arizona | June 10, 2020 | Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit | 20-16759; 20-16766 (9th Cir.) 2:20-cv-01143-DLR (D. Ariz.) | Dismissal appealed | Whether recent changes to Arizona's election procedures – which provide both absentee voters whose signatures on their mail-in ballots cannot be verified, and in-person voters who cannot provide proper identification at the polls, up to five days after Election Day to remedy their ballot identification issues – must also be extended to absentee voters who submit unsigned ballots. | [15][16][17] |
| California | June 11, 2020 | Gallagher v. Newsom | California Superior Court, County of Sutter | CVCS20-0912 | Ruled | Challenging Executive Order N-67-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 3, 2020. The court found Order N-67-20 to be unconstitutional and enjoining Newsom from "amend[ing], alter[ing], or chang[ing] existing statutory law or mak[ing] new statutory or legislative policy" via the California Emergency Services Act. | [18] |
| Georgia | May 8, 2020 | The New Georgia Project v. Raffensperger | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia | 20-13360-D (11th Cir.) 1:20-CV-01986-ELR (N.D. Ga.) | Appealed by defendants | Whether Georgia's requirement that absentee ballots be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day poses an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Originally in favor of a 3-day extension to receive ballots, the decision was appealed. Republicans filed motion to stay the injunction that was granted on October 2 in the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by JudgesBritt Grant and Barbara Lagoa. | .[19][20][21][22] |
| Michigan | June 2, 2020 | Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. Benson | Michigan Court of Appeals | 20-000108-MM (Mich. Ct. Cl.) 1:20-cv-00948 (W.D. Mich.) 354993 (Mich. App.) | Ruled | Michigan State Appeals court reversed lower state court ruling, finding the 8pm election deadline for receiving absentee ballots does NOT violate Const 1963, art 2, § 4 and that the court is bound byLeague of Women Voters of Mich v Secretary of State (League II), (issued July 14, 2020, Docket No. 353654). Defendants have requested withdrawal of similar complaint pending in federal court. | [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] |
| Minnesota | September 22, 2020 | Carson v. Simon | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota | 0:20-cv-02030 | Ongoing | Whether a measure by Minnesota elections officials extending the deadline for timely postmarked absentee ballots to be received and still counted until one week after Election Day violates the U.S. Constitution; and whether the challengers, two nominees to serve as Republican Party presidential electors in Minnesota, have legal standing to challenge the measure. | [35] |
| Nevada | October 23, 2020 | Kraus v. Cegavske | Nevada Supreme Court | 82018 | Rejected | Appealed to Supreme Court of Nevada; settlement filed. | [36][37][38][39] |
| Nevada | August 7, 2020 | Donald J. Trump for President v. Cegavske | Nevada District Court | 2:20-cv-01445-JCM-VCF | Dismissed | Whether recent changes by the state legislature to Nevada's voting procedures including, among other things, the expansion of voting-by-mail and a requirement that officials count ballots received up to three days after Election Day, violate federal election law and theFourteenth Amendment. | [40] |
| New Jersey | August 18, 2020 | Donald J. Trump for President v. Way | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey | 3:20-cv-10753-MAS-ZNQ | Denied | Whether an executive order by the governor of New Jersey in light of the coronavirus pandemic that requires mail-in ballots to be sent to all registered voters in the state, and extends the deadline for submitting them, violates federal election law and the Constitution. | [41] |
| North Carolina | August 10, 2020 | Moore v. Circosta | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit | 1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.) S:20-CV-507-D (E.D.N.C.) P20-513 (N.C. Ct. App.) 440P20 (N.C.) 20A72 (S. Ct.) 20–2118; 20-2119 (4th Cir.) | Denial appealed | Whether coronavirus-related changes implemented after the start of absentee voting by North Carolina elections officials to a number of absentee ballot procedures – extending the deadline to receive ballots, and modifying requirements for postmarking and third-party collection of them – violate the state legislature's power to regulate elections under the Constitution as well as the equal protection clause. M.D.N.C. stay denial of October 14 combined withWise v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, 1:20-cv-00912. SCOTUS stay denial on October 28. U.S. Appeals 4th Cir briefing schedule deadlines through January 2021. | [42][43] |
| Pennsylvania | July 10, 2020 | Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | 133 MM 2020; 407-MD-2020 | Ruled | Whether injunctive relief and declaratory relief be given to the voters of Pennsylvania in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Remedies sought were Count 1: Concerning the use ofdrop boxes, Count 2: Allowing 3 additional days to receive mail in ballots, Count 3: On preemptively contacting voters to cure incomplete or incorrectly filled out ballots, Count 4: On allowing ballots without their secrecy envelope to not be invalidated, and Count 5: Declaring that the residency requirement for poll-watchers is constitutional. Counts 1, 2, and 5 granted; Counts 3 and 4 denied. | [44][45][46][47] |
| Pennsylvania | September 28, 2020 | Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar | Supreme Court of the United States | No. 20-542 (SCOTUS ) | Ongoing | A Supreme Court case to determine if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania usurped the authority of thePennsylvania General Assembly inPennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar. Not confirmed whether the court will rule on the issue. JusticeSamuel Alito has ordered all such ballots to be kept and tabulated separately pending the outcome of this litigation. As of November 30, 2020, the case was vided withScarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party. See alsoScarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (No. 20-574) | [36][48][49][50][51] |
| Pennsylvania | October 27, 2020 | Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party | Supreme Court of the United States | No. 20-574 (SCOTUS ) | Ongoing | Another Supreme Court case to determine if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania usurped the authority of thePennsylvania General Assembly inPennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar. As of November 30, 2020, the case was vided withRepublican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar. See alsoRepublican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar (No. 20-542). | [52][53] |
| Pennsylvania | July 1, 2020 | Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania | 2:20-cv-00966-NR | Dismissed | Whether a number of Pennsylvania elections accommodations in light of the coronavirus pandemic – providing additional drop-off sites and alleviating signature-matching requirements for absentee ballots, as well as lifting a restriction on employing out-of-county poll workers – violate state election law and the U.S. Constitution. Some of the issues initially raised in this case were determined byPennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar thus significantly narrowing the focus of this case. Dismissed on a lack of standing and a lack of merit. Lack of standing due to lack of evidence regarding a "certain impending" harm of "vote dilution". Lack of merit due to federal courts "sphere does not extend to second-guessing and interfering with a State’s reasonable, nondiscriminatory election rules." | [54][55] |
| Tennessee | May 1, 2020 | Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Hargett | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit | 3:20-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.); 20-6046 (6th Cir.) | Dismissed | Whether Tennessee may enforce a number of vote-by-mail regulations for the November 2020 election, including preventing first-time voters from applying for an absentee ballot, barring third-party distribution of absentee ballot applications, and a process for verifying signatures on mail-in ballots. | [56] |
| Texas | October 27, 2020 | Hotze v. Hollins | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit | 4:20-cv-03709 | Dismissed | A federal court lawsuit to have approximately 127,000 ballots thrown out due to the fact that they were done at drive-through stations. Republicans needed to prove an "evil motive". | [57] |
| Texas | October 30, 2020 | In re Steven Hotze, M.D., Harris Cnty. Republican Party, Hon. Keith Nielsen, and Sharon Hemphill | Texas Supreme Court | 20-0819 | Dismissed | [58] | |
| Texas | October 30, 2020 | In re Steven Hotze, M.D., Wendell Champion, Hon. Steven Toth, and Sharon Hemphill | Texas Supreme Court | 20-0863 | Dismissed | [58] | |
| Texas | October 1, 2020 | Texas League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit | 1:20-CV-1006-RP; 1:20-CV-1015-RP | Ruled | Whether Texas' limitation of one absentee ballot drop-off site per county violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The federal appeals court allowed the limitation to remain in place throughout the remainder of the 2020 election season. | [59][60] |
| Texas | April 7, 2020 | Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas | 5:20-cv-00438 | Ruled | Whether a Texas law requiring voters under the age of 65 to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail violates the 26th Amendment or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law does not violate the 26th Amendment, and sent case back to lower court for more proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court later upheld the age requirement in a related case, State of Texas v. Hollins. | [61] |
| Washington | August 18, 2020 | Washington v. Trump | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington | 1:20-CV-03127-SAB | Ruled | Whether recent changes announced to the United States Postal Service violate federal administrative rulemaking requirements and infringe upon the rights of states to regulate elections under the Constitution. | [62][63] |
On June 10, 2020, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in federal court, challenging a state law that requires those who vote by mail to correct missing signatures by election day. On September 10, U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes ruled for the Arizona Democratic Party. On October 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overruled Rayes, finding that the election day deadline to correct a missing signature imposes a minimal burden on voters.[15][16][17]
On September 30, two non-profit groups asked U.S. district court judge Steven Logan to extend the voter registration deadline from October 5, the date set by Arizona state law, to October 23.[7] The groups argued that in light of COVID-19 pandemic, the October 5 deadline is a burden on voters.[12] Judge Logan granted the request, finding that "[b]allot access is an extremely important right, and it has been restricted during this unprecedented time."[13] The Republican National Committee joined the suit and appealed Logan's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which permitted the extension only to October 15, and validated registrations lodged before that date.[14]
TwoCalifornia State Assembly members,James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) andKevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), suedGavin Newsom, the Governor of California, claiming that Newsom did not have the authority to issue an executive order (N-67-20, issued June 3, 2020) to mandate all Californians receive mail-in ballots for the November 3 general election by invoking the California Emergency Services Act (CESA). On November 14, 2020,Sutter County Judge Sarah H. Heckman finalized a ruling saying Governor Newsom overstepped his authority in doing so. The ruling also put a permanent injunction on Newsom, enjoining him from "amend[ing], alter[ing], or chang[ing] existing statutory law or mak[ing] new statutory or legislative policy" via CESA. However, since the legislature had overwhelmingly passed a similar law (AB 860;[64]Sen. 31–7,Ass. 68–5, signed June 18[65]) after the executive order, the ruling had no impact on the outcome of the election. The main focus was to ensure that the Governor of California cannot use executive power under other similar circumstances by invoking the California Emergency Services Act.[18]
On June 2, 2020, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans filed suit in Michigan's court of claims against state officials, including Secretary of StateJocelyn Benson, challenging the requirement for mail-in ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted. JudgeCynthia Stephens granted the request, ordering that county clerks must count ballots postmarked by election day and received up to 14 days after election day.[23][33] The state appeals court overruled Stephens, writing that the lower court "abused its discretion by ordering the extension."[34]
On September 22, 2020, two Republican presidential elector nominees, James Carson andEric Lucero, filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that a consent decree entered into byMinnesota Secretary of StateSteve Simon and the Alliance for Retired Americans Educational Fund is unconstitutional. While Minnesota state law requires mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day in order to be counted, the consent decree extended the deadline for mail-in ballots by one week. The district court denied Carson and Lucero's request, concluding the plaintiffs lackedstanding. On October 24, theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, finding that “only the Minnesota Legislature, and not the Secretary" could establish rules for conducting elections in the state. The court ordered ballots arriving after 8p.m. on Election Day to be segregated pending possible further proceedings. Secretary of State Simon said votes received after 8p.m. will still be counted unless a court rules otherwise.[35][66]
One lawsuit was filed inNevada before and seven were filed after November 3, 2020.
On October 23, theNevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign joined a private citizen in filing a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of Nevada[37] against Secretary of StateBarbara Cegavske and Clark County registrar of voters Joe Gloria, citing alleged problems with the signature verification process.[38] Judge James Wilson[39] rejected the lawsuit,[36] finding the plaintiffs lacked standing.[38] Plaintiffs appealed to theSupreme Court of Nevada. On November 5, a settlement was filed, effectively ending the lawsuit.[36]
In August 2020, the Trump campaign sued New Jersey state officials in federal court, seeking to overturn an executive order issued by governorPhillip Murphy. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Murphy had ordered that mail-in ballots should be sent to all active voters in the state. The Trump campaign argued that the order violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives power to state legislatures to conduct congressional elections and select electors for the U.S. presidency. Thereafter, the New Jersey state legislature enacted legislation to the same effect as the governor's order. In September, the Trump campaign asked U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp to prohibit vote counting before election day, and the counting of mail-in ballots that are not postmarked and received after election day. On October 6, Judge Shipp denied the request.[41]
Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar was a case concerning the whether some sort of accommodations should be granted to citizens due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[44] This case was primarily filed in response to the decision of theCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania inDelisle v. Boockvar from a couple weeks prior in which the court denied statewide injunctive relief for the 2020 Pennsylvania Primaries due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[47] Among the accommodations sought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party was a request to count ballots received up to 3 days after 8 p.m on Election Day so long as they were not clearly postmarked after Election Day.[45] The case was originally filed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party against theSecretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar, in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on July 10, 2020, but ultimately raised to theSupreme Court of Pennsylvania.[44] The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on September 8 decided that "Based on our disposition of all of the claims set forth above, we grant relief ... and hold that the Election Code permits county boards of election to collect hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than their office addresses including drop-boxes as indicated herein, a three-day extension of the absentee and mail-in ballot received-by deadline is adopted such that ballots mailed by voters via the United States Postal Service and postmarked by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020, shall be counted if they are otherwise valid and received by the county boards of election on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020; ballots received within this period that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day; the poll watcher residency requirement set forth in ... is constitutional."[46] Starting on September 22, 2020, Pennsylvania State Legislature Republicans led byJoe Scarnati filed applications seeking astay on the decision of the case.[44] These applications for stay were unsuccessful in both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. The denial of the application filled in the United States Supreme Court was denied in a 4-4 decision due to Justice Amy Coney Barrett not being confirmed yet. The denial of these applications led to both United States Supreme Court casesRepublican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar (No. 20-542) andScarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (No. 20-574).
Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar (No. 20-542)[67] andScarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (No. 20-574)[53] are two pending United StatesSupreme Court cases on whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had the authority to provide the injunctive and declaratory relief in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar. This includes whether they had the authority to provide injunctive relief allowing ballots received in the state after 8 p.m. on Election Day to count. The first of these cases,Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, filed its first petition for writ of certiorari on October 23, 2020. A few days later on October 27, 2020,Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party filed its first petition for writ of certiorari.[52] The next day on October 28, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rejected a motion to expediteRepublican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar. On November 6, 2020, Justice Samuel Alito ordered all ballots received after 8 p.m on Election Day to be kept and tabulated separately pending the outcome of this litigation.[36][48][68][69] On November 30, 2020, the cases were vided together to allow the two cases to be treated as one and a brief filed in one would apply to the other as well.[52] On December 16, 2020, the case briefs were distributed for the conference occurring on January 8, 2020. Due to Congress counting the electoral votes on January 6, 2020, it seems likely the cases will be dismissed as being moot barring any delay arising from Congress or expediency from the Supreme Court.
Several lawsuits were filed in Texas prior to the election.
A number of lawsuits were brought against Harris County, the state's most populous county, challenging its drive-thru voting system set up as one of an array of measures to mitigate COVID-19 infection risk.Joe Straus, a former Republican Speaker of the Texas House, called the lawsuits "patently wrong".[58]
This action was filed on October 28, 2020, in federal court in Houston by Republican activistSteven Hotze and GOP candidates.[70][71] U.S. District JudgeAndrew Hanen dismissed the complaint on November 2,[57] finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It was also reported that he stated during the remotely-conducted motion hearing that the Republicans needed to prove an "evil motive" to have the ballots thrown out and finding that they failed to do so.[72][73][74] An emergency motion in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was unsuccessful.[57]
The Harris County Republican Party was joined by others in filing amandamus petition with theTexas Supreme Court asking for a stop to drive-through voting inHarris County. The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition on October 22, 2020.[58]
Nearly identical to the previous petition, this original proceeding was filed in the Texas Supreme Court on October 27, 2020.[75] The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate almost 127,000 votes already cast via drive-through facilities.[76][77] This motion was denied by the Texas Supreme Court on November 1, 2020.[58]
On April 7, 2020, theTexas Democratic Party and several voters filed a lawsuit against state officials in federal court, seeking to change Texas state law that requires voters under age 65 to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail. In May, U.S. District JudgeFred Biery issued a preliminary injunction to allow all eligible voters to vote by mail, ruling that the state's differing treatment of voters based on age violated theTwenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
On June 4, a motions panel of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put a hold on Judge Biery's ruling pending appeal. The Texas Democratic Party then filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for Judge Biery's ruling to be reinstated, but the justices denied the petition. On September 10, a different panel of the 5th Circuit issued a lengthy merits opinion that vacated Judge Biery's preliminary injunction, finding that the Texas law limiting no-excuse mail-in voting did not violate the Twenty-sixth Amendment. The court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings on legal claims that the appeals court had not reached, including an equal protection challenge to the differential treatment of voters based on their age under pandemic conditions.
On October 1, 2020, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the National League of United Latin American Citizens, plus theLeague of Women Voters and two Texas voters, filed a lawsuit against Texas GovernorGreg Abbott in federal district court. The groups sought to block the Governor's order limiting the number of absentee ballot drop-off sites to one per county, arguing that the order violated the U.S. Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act because it imposed burdens on older, sick, and disabled voters and disproportionately affected more populous counties.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman agreed and enjoined enforcement of the limit on drop-off sites. On appeal, a motions panel of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the state, finding that the Governor's order "abridges no one's right to vote". The court placed an immediate stay on Judge Pittman's order, allowing the limit on drop-off sites to remain in place through the remainder of the 2020 U.S. presidential election season.[59][60] The Texas Supreme Court followed the Fifth Circuit in denying a similar challenge by different plaintiffs in a parallel case litigated in state court, although the latter relied on state law, rather than federal law.
State of Washington v. Trump (No. 1:20-cv-03127)[63] hinged on whether recent changes announced to the United States Postal Service violate federal administrative rulemaking requirements and infringe upon the rights of states to regulate elections under the Constitution.[62] On October 30, 2020, the court issued an order[78] regarding election mail.
