Today, in the US
3000 more people died of the virus today, that is 8500, since Wednesday!!! NOTHING from the White House, as they still hold Christmas parties with no mask and then send the pictures around as if this is OK and normal.
Total Confusion in congress.
Food lines in states are average 3 to 10 miles long- this is happening in the RICHEST COUNTRY in THE HISTORY OF MAN.
with the most scientist, schools and labs, but he stands in front of the presidential seal and says they are ALL wrong!!!
0-4 today’s in court proceedings, he lost 4 more of the ridiculous, and dishonest cases by the president’s legal team. Judges that HE appointed are extremely frustrated and writing some of the most demeaning and pointed decisions I have ever read. Total case count
All why people act as if they do not know how our elections work/function or something was different this year than what happens every 2 yrs, that right we have Federal elections every TWO years and presidential elections every FOUR. All elections in the US are STATE functions. This is since the inception of the USA 1776. it is amazing that they have caused doubt to US citizens, where did they go to school? where have they been in all the elections prior, THERE is NO election dept that declares the winner. it is by the votes and cert by the state!!!!.
We are now in full satanic attack, where a lie is the truth and truth is a lie.
- 1 Background
- 2 Legal analysis and reactions
- 3 Summary of post-election lawsuits
- 4 Arizona
- 5 District of Columbia
- 6 Georgia
- 7 Michigan
- 7.1 Bally v. Whitmer
- 7.2 Costantino v. Detroit
- 7.3 Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Michigan State Court)
- 7.4 Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Federal Court)
- 7.5 Johnson v. Benson
- 7.6 King v. Whitmer
- 7.7 Stoddard v. City Election Comm’n of the City of Detroit
- 7.8 Angelic Johnson, et. al. v. Jocelyn Benson, et. al.
- 8 Minnesota
- 9 Nevada
- 10 Pennsylvania
- 10.1 In re: Canvassing Observation
- 10.2 In re: Motion for Injunctive Relief of Northampton County Republican Committee
- 10.3 Barnette v. Lawrence
- 10.4 Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections
- 10.5 Hamm v. Boockvar
- 10.6 Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections
- 10.7 Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of Elections
- 10.8 Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar
- 10.9 Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of Elections
- 10.10 In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election (Philadelphia County)
- 10.11 In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election (Bucks County)
- 10.12 Pirkle v. Wolf
- 10.13 Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections
- 10.14 Kelly v. Pennsylvania
- 11 Wisconsin
- 12 See also
Both before and after the election, the campaign for incumbent president Donald Trump filed a number of lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Many cases were quickly dismissed, and lawyers and other observers noted that the lawsuits are not likely to have an effect on the outcome of the election. Trump, his supporters, and his attorneys asserted widespread election fraud in public statements.
The Trump campaign suffered several setbacks on November 13. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that the election was the “most secure in American history” and that there was no evidence any voting systems malfunctioned. Sixteen federal prosecutors assigned to monitor the election sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread irregularities. A law firm hired by the campaign in Pennsylvania quit amidst concerns they were being used to undermine the electoral process. The campaign dropped its “Sharpiegate” lawsuit in Arizona. A judge in Wayne County, Michigan, refused to halt the vote count or certification of the winner. In Pennsylvania, judges refused to block 8,927 mail-in votes in Montgomery and Philadelphia counties.
Four lawsuits orchestrated by conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr. in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were dropped on November 16 after a federal appellate court said voters could not bring some constitutional claims. Sidney Powell was dropped as a lawyer for the Trump campaign on November 22. Powell is currently operating independently in support of the Trump campaign.
By November 27, more than thirty of the legal challenges filed since Election Day had failed.
Legal analysis and reactions
Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said “[t]here’s literally nothing that I’ve seen yet with the meaningful potential to affect the final result”. Ohio State University election law professor Ned Foley noted “[y]ou have to have a legal claim, and you have to have evidence to back it up. And that’s just not there.” University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas said the lawsuits “all seem to have no merit whatsoever”. Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in national security, wrote that the suits “continue to defy reason and logic, and are purely theater … It’s all a farce”. University of California, Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen said there is “no evidence of fraud so far that could conceivably affect the election results”. Barry Richard, who helped to oversee the Republican-led Florida recount effort during the 2000 election, called the lawsuits “entirely without merit” and said they “will not be successful”; Gerry McDonough, an attorney who worked for the Gore campaign, said Trump “has no chance of overturning the result—it’s just impossible”. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a statement calling the 2020 election “the most secure in American history” and noting “[t]here is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised”.
Jones Day, one of many law firms working for the Trump campaign and one that specifically handled Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, faced internal criticism for its “shortsighted” efforts on litigation that “erode[s] public confidence in the election results”.
Summary of post-election lawsuits
|Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election|
|State||First filing date||Case||Court||Docket no(s).||Outcome||Comments||References|
|Arizona||November 12, 2020||Aguilera v. Fontes||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||CV2020-014083||Dropped||Original “Sharpie lawsuit”.
|November 7, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||CV2020-014248||Dropped||Repackaged “Sharpie lawsuit”. Plaintiffs allege local poll workers induced voters to override alerts from the tabulation machine when a vote was flagged as unreadable, causing affected votes on those ballots to be disqualified.
|November 12, 2020||Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||CV2020-014553||Dismissed||Suit seeks to force a hand count of votes separated by precinct instead of counting them by voting center.
Dismissed with prejudice.
|District of Columbia||November 20, 2020||Michigan Welfare Rights Org. v. Donald J. Trump||U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia||1:20-cv-03388||Ongoing|||
|Georgia||November 4, 2020||In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020||Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia||SPCV20-00982||Dismissed||Plaintiffs, the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party, alleged late ballots were illegally counted.
Dismissed without prejudice.
|November 11, 2020||Brooks v. Mahoney||U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah Division)||4:20-cv-00281-RSB-CLR||Dropped||Plaintiffs claimed software glitch caused a miscount of votes.
|November 13, 2020||Wood v. Raffensperger||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia||1:20-cv-04651-SD||Ongoing||Lawsuit challenging the inclusion of absentee ballots for the general election in Georgia.
November 19: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) request to halt certification was Denied as plaintiff Wood lacks standing and his constitutional rights arguments fail.
|November 27, 2020||Pearson v. Kemp||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia||1:20-cv-04809-TCB||Ongoing|||
|November 30, 2020||Boland v. Raffensperger||Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia||n/a||Ongoing||Plaintiff claim state election officials failed to follow election code, and seek audit of ballots or to block certification of election.|||
|Michigan||November 4, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson||Michigan Court of Appeals||20-000225-MZ||Dismissed||Lawsuit brought by the Trump Campaign attempting to stop the counting of absentee ballots in Michigan. Dismissed by court of claims.|||
|November 11, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson||U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan||1:20-cv-01083||Dropped||Trump lawsuit claiming fraud in the Wayne County election. The suit seeks to halt the certification of election results in Wayne County and statewide.
|November 4, 2020||Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit||Michigan Third Judicial Circuit Court||20-014604-CZ||Ongoing||Currently set for trial on February 4, 2021. A motion for preliminary injunctive relief during the interim was denied by Judge Timothy M Kenny stating that the “…Plaintiffs have made only a claim but have offered no evidence to support their assertions.” at the time the motion was filed.|||
|November 11, 2020||Bally v. Whitmer||U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan||1:20-cv-01088||Dropped||Plaintiffs seek to exclude all votes from Wayne, Washtenaw and Ingham Counties from Michigan’s certified vote count.
|November 9, 2020||Costantino v. Detroit||Michigan Supreme Court||162245||Dismissed||Plaintiffs alleged election fraud, seeking to prevent the election results of Detroit and Wayne County from being certified. State trial court denied motion for injunction; state court of appeals denied application for appeal; state supreme court ruled case is moot.|||
|November 16, 2020||Johnson v. Benson||United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan||1:20-cv-01098||Dropped||Voluntarily dismissed.|||
|November 25, 2020||King v. Whitmer||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan||2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW||Ongoing|||
|Minnesota||November 24, 2020||Tyler Kistner et al v. Steve Simon, et al||Minnesota Supreme Court||A20-1486||Ongoing||Seeks a temporary restraining order to delay the canvassing board’s vote, alleging a variety of problems with the election.|||
|Nevada||November 5, 2020||Stokke v. Cegavske||Nevada District Court||2:20-CV-02046-APG-DJA||Dropped|||
|November 16, 2020||Marchant v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||A-20-824884-W||Dismissed|||
|November 16, 2020||Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada||Nevada District Court, Clark County||A-20-820510-C||Dismissed|||
|November 16, 2020||Becker v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||A-20-824878-W||Dismissed||Republican state senate candidate challenged use of software to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.
Dismissed without prejudice.
|November 19, 2020||Rodimer v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||A-20-825130-W||Dismissed||Republican state senate candidate seeking a new election.
|November 19, 2020||Becker v. Cannizzaro||Nevada District Court, Clark County||A-20-825067-P||Dropped|||
|Pennsylvania||November 9, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar||U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania||No. 20-3371; No. 20-3384 (3rd Cir. )
|Dismissed, appeal rejected||Trump Campaign lawsuit filed against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The suit challenges the results of the election and asks the court to prohibit the certification of results.
The Trump campaign filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 22, 2020. The Court rejected the case in a sharply-worded decision on November 27, stating, “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here…calling an election unfair does not make it so.”
|November 5, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of Elections||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania||Civ. No. 20-5533||Dropped||Lawsuit about the number of poll watchers. After the parties to the lawsuit agreed to allow 60 observers each from the Democratic and Republican parties, the court dismissed the lawsuit in light of this agreement and denied the emergency injunction motion without prejudice as it was moot.|||
|November 4, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||602-MD-2020||Ruled||The court concluded that Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lacked statutory authority to prolong the deadline for proof of identification and ordered for such segregated ballots not to be counted. May be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.|||
|November 5, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections||Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County||NO. 2020-18680, C-48-CV-2020-6915||Denial appealed||A petition to compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots.
November 13, 2020, petition was denied and the Montgomery County Board of Elections was ordered to count the 592 ballots. The decision was appealed 3 days later on November 16.
|November 9, 2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of Elections||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||1191 CD 2020||Ongoing|||
|November 10, 2020||In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election||Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County||31 EAP 2020, 32 EAP 2020, 33 EAP 2020, 34 EAP 2020, 35 EAP 2020; 20110894, 20110895, 20110896,
|Dismissed||Transferred to Pennsylvania Supreme Court; appealed|||
|November 10, 2020||Pirkle v. Wolf||U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania||4:20-cv-02088-MWB||Dismissed||Attempt to block all votes from Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware and Allegheny Counties from being included in the state total. Consolidated with Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections (4:20-CV-02078).|||
|November 3, 2020||Hamm v. Boockvar||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||600 MD 2020||Ruled||Whether guidance issued by the secretary of state allowing voters who cast defective ballots to re-vote is illegal. The trial court ordered remedied ballots to be segregated pending further proceedings.|||
|November 4, 2020||Barnette v. Lawrence||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania||2:20-cv-05477-PBT||Dismissed|||
|November 12, 2020||Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County||1162 CD 2020 (Penn. Commonw. Ct.); GD 20-011654||Ongoing|||
|November 3, 2020||In re: Motion for Injunctive Relief of Northampton County Republican Committee||Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County||C-48-CV-2020-6915||Dismissed||Court denied oral motion.|||
|November 25, 2020||Kelly v. Pennsylvania||Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
|68 MAP 2020 (PA Supreme Ct.)
620 MD 2020 (PA Commonw. Ct.)
|Dismissed after appeal||Plaintiffs asked to stop certification of election results, challenging the legality of no-excuse mail-in ballots. Lower court granted request; Pennsylvania appealed to state’s supreme Court. State Supreme Court dismissed the case.|||
|Wisconsin||November 12, 2020||Langenhorst v. Pecore||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin||1:20-cv-01701-WCG||Dropped||Plaintiffs allege inclusion of some invalid ballots in Milwaukee, Menominee and Dane Counties results has resulted in vote-dilution disenfranchisement, and seeks to invalidate all votes from those counties before Wisconsin certifies their results.
Voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.
|November 23, 2020||Wisconsin Voters Alliance vs. Wisconsin Elections Commission||Wisconsin Supreme Court||n/a||Ongoing||Plaintiffs claim thousands of illegal ballots were cast and seek to stop certification of election.|||
|November 27, 2020||Mueller v. Wisconsin Elections Commission||Wisconsin Supreme Court||n/a||Ongoing||Plaintiffs claim ballots collected from drop boxes are illegal and should not be counted. Plaintiffs seek to stop certification of election.|||
|December 1, 2020||Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission||United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin||2:20-cv-1771||Ongoing||Plaintiffs challenge a variety of election practices and claim electronic ballot stuffing campaign occurred. Plaintiffs seek decertification of election results.|||
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Arizona
Several lawsuits were filed to protest aspects of the election. The last case to be dismissed involved two voters in Maricopa County who complained their ballots had been mishandled; Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney dismissed the case by noting that their votes would not change the results.
Aguilera v. Fontes
On November 4, 2020, a voter, Laurie Aguilera, filed a lawsuit (CV2020-014083) against Maricopa County seeking the opportunity for voters to fix their ballots where the ballots were marked using Sharpies. Aguilera said her vote was not counted at the ballot box because of the Sharpie markings, and that poll workers cancelled her ballot and refused to allow her to cast a new one; county officials denied the claims. The claims were dubbed “Sharpiegate” on social media, which the county recorder Adrian Fontes said was “hoo-hah”. Fontes said the ballots are designed to be processed even in the event of bleed-through. Pima County officials described the controversy as false, saying ballots can be tabulated when marked with felt-tip pens. On November 7, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit.
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes
On November 12, 2020, the Arizona Republican Party filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County Reporter Adrian Fontes, seeking an audit of votes in the county. On November 19, 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and the Republican Party’s request for an injunction against Maricopa County denied. In his ruling, Judge John Hannah invited the Secretary of State’s Office to seek payment for attorney’s fees from the Arizona Republican Party, citing a state law that allows for such awards when a party brings a claim “without substantial justification” or “solely or primarily for delay or harassment.”
Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs
Centered on a debunked conspiracy theory known as “Sharpiegate”, the “Sharpie lawsuit” from the Trump campaign against Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs alleged that legal ballots with stray markings or bleed-through from markers were being thrown out. Stories surfaced on social media claiming that election workers were purposefully having voters mark their ballots with a Sharpie so their vote would not be counted. In response, Maricopa County announced that “Sharpies are not a problem for our tabulation equipment, and the offset columns on ballots ensure that bleed through won’t impact your vote”. On November 4, Arizona attorney general Mark Brnovich announced an investigation; the next day, he said “we are now confident that the use of Sharpie markers did not result in disenfranchisement”. The rumor was also publicly debunked by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Trump campaign requested that their evidence be kept secret from the public, but the judge refused to allow the secrecy. The Trump campaign also stated that they had video footage from within a polling area, however, such footage would be illegal if taken within 75 feet (23 m) of a polling area with voters present. The Trump campaign attempted to submit affidavits they collected, but admitted that some of these affidavits were “false” or “spam”; the judge refused to accept the affidavits as evidence, calling them unreliable. Additionally, during questioning, none of the witnesses indicated that they had a basis to believe that their vote was improperly discarded; with the only impropriety raised being election workers pressing buttons for them.
During the hearing, the lawyer for the Trump campaign, Kory Langhofer, stated that the plaintiffs were “not alleging fraud” or “that anyone is stealing the election”, but were disputing “good faith errors.”
On November 13, the lawsuit regarding presidential ballots was dropped, after it became evident that the number of votes potentially to be contested (191) would not overcome Biden’s margin of victory in the state (11,414 at the time, with 10,315 uncounted).
District of Columbia
Michigan Welfare Rights Org. v. Donald J. Trump
Black voter groups in Michigan filed suit in the District of Columbia against the Trump campaign on November 20, 2020, alleging the campaign has disenfranchised Black voters through their attempts to challenge election results in Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia
Brooks v. Mahoney
On November 11, 2020, four voters in Georgia sued Thomas Mahoney, Chairman of the Chatham County Board of Elections, in federal district court. The voters claimed a software glitch caused a miscounting of votes, and asked the court to stop certain counties from certifying their presidential election results. On November 16, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
Boland v. Raffensperger
On November 30, 2020, a Georgia voter, Paul Andrew Boland, sued state election officials in state court. Boland alleged that the defendants failed to follow the election code based on a low ballot rejection rate for signature mismatch, and because about 20,000 people who do not live in Georgia voted there. Boland asked the court for an audit of the ballots, or to otherwise decertify the state’s election results.
In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020
The lawsuit, regarding 53 ballots, was filed by the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party on November 4 in the Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia. The campaign claimed that two witnesses had seen late ballots being improperly mixed with on-time ballots. Superior Court Judge James F. Bass Jr. denied the request and dismissed the suit on November 5, after hearing testimony from the chairman of the Chatham County Board of Registrars. The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late.
Pearson v. Kemp
On November 25, 2020, a group of voters led by teenage conservative activist C. J. Pearson sued Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, and other state officials. The plaintiffs claimed that the use of Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provides voting software and hardware across the U.S., violated state and federal law, and that Dominion was “founded by foreign oligarchs and dictators to ensure computerized ballot-stuffing and vote manipulation to whatever level was needed to make certain Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez never lost another election.” The plaintiffs alleged that Dominion was used to rig votes for Joe Biden, and asked the court to stop the certification of elections results and order Governor Kemp to certify President Donald Trump as the winner in Georgia. This so-called “Kraken” lawsuit, along with King v. Whitmer, was filed in federal court by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell.
Dominion responded publicly with a point-by-point rebuttal of the claims, calling them “baseless, senseless, [and] physically impossible.”
A hearing was held on November 29, after which U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ordered Cobb, Gwinnett, and Cherokee counties to preserve their voting machines and refrain from resetting them; he declined to immediately order a forensic examination of the voting machines. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal of that decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case No. 20-14480). On December 2, the Eleventh Circuit ordered an expedited briefing schedule and review.
Wood v. Raffensperger
The lawsuit was filed by L. Lin Wood Jr. on November 13 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff claimed that the balloting result in Georgia was defective and should be either invalidated or modified (i.e. having cured absentee ballots removed) because Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other government officials had no statutory authority to change election law to relax signature match requirement or to allow curing of absentee ballots. These changes to the voting process were introduced as the result of a settlement of an earlier lawsuit with the Democratic Party of Georgia on March 6, 2020. An amended complaint was filed on November 16, 2020, to include additional complaints about the automatic recount process.
On November 19, Judge Steven Grimberg ruled that Wood lacked standing to bring the case, had brought it too late, and “didn’t have the ability to show he could bring a case.” The Trump-appointed judge also found “no basis in fact or in law” to stop Georgia’s certification of its election results (in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump) at such a late stage, as this would “breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement”.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Michigan
Bally v. Whitmer
On November 11, 2020, registered voters in Michigan sued state officials, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer, in federal district court. The voters alleged a variety of irregularities, including the exclusion of poll watchers from the canvassing process, and asked for votes from Wayne, Ingham and Washtenaw to not be counted. The complaint cited similar cases Costantino v. Benson and Trump v. Benson. On November 16, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit.
Costantino v. Detroit
On November 9, Republican poll challengers filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court against Detroit election officials, alleging fraud and misconduct during the vote count at TCF Center and asking for the court to stop the certification of Wayne County results. Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny denied the petition, finding the “[p]laintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.” The judge stated that the plaintiffs did not fully comprehend the “TCF absent ballot tabulation process” because they failed to attend a familiarization session on October 29. The plaintiffs appealed to the state’s court of appeals, which declined to hear the case; on November 23, the Michigan Supreme Court also declined to hear the case.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Michigan State Court)
The Trump campaign filed suit in Michigan State Court on November 4 against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, claiming its election observers were not allowed to view the ballot count, as required by Michigan law, and asking the court to stop the counting of votes. On November 6, Judge Cynthia Stephens denied the request, noting in her ruling that the “essence of the count is completed, and the relief is completely unavailable”.
The judge also noted the official complaint did not state “why”, “when, where, or by whom” an election observer was allegedly blocked from observing ballot-counting in Michigan.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson (Federal Court)
On November 11, the Trump campaign filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. The campaign repeated allegations in Constantino v. Detroit and provided hundreds of pages of affidavits from poll challengers, seeking to block Michigan’s certification of the vote. The case is ongoing.
On November 19, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal because the Wayne County board of county canvassers met and declined to certify the results of the presidential election. The notice refers to the attached affidavits of Wayne County canvassing board members William C. Hartman and Monica S. Palmer.
Johnson v. Benson
On November 16, 2020, registered voters and poll challengers from Michigan sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in federal district court. The plaintiffs claimed the secretary enabled fraud on election day, and asked to block certification of the vote results until an audit could be performed. On November 18, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit.
King v. Whitmer
On November 25, 2020, a group of voters filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan against Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan, and other state officials. The plaintiffs alleged massive election fraud, multiple violations of the Michigan Election Code, in addition to the Election and Electors Clauses and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution violations. As the result, the plaintiffs sought to 1) have the state de-certify the election results; 2) prevent the Governor from transmitting the currently certified election results to the Electoral College; 3) have the Governor transmit certified election results that state that President Donald Trump is the winner of the state election; among other reliefs 
Stoddard v. City Election Comm’n of the City of Detroit
The conservative group Election Integrity Fund filed a lawsuit in the Third Judicial Circuit of Michigan asking for a motion of injunctive relief ordering Detroit election workers to stop “curing” absentee ballots. Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied the motion for injunctive relief on November 6, finding that the plaintiffs did “not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions … Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not set forth a cause of action.” The judge noted that “sinister, fraudulent motives” were alleged, but that the “plaintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible”. Following Kenny’s ruling, Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general, issued a statement saying Michigan has “always been committed to a fair, transparent[,] and secure election that ensures every legal vote is counted”.
Angelic Johnson, et. al. v. Jocelyn Benson, et. al.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Minnesota
Kistner v. Simon
On November 24, 2020, a petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court by 25 candidates from numerous races within Minnesota as well as a handful of voters against Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and the state’s canvassing board. The suit alleged various election problems and sought a temporary restraining order delaying certification of election results, which had already been certified the previous day.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Nevada
Seven lawsuits were filed in Nevada after November 3, 2020.
Becker v. Cannizzaro
On November 19, 2020, Republican state senate candidate April Becker filed a lawsuit against the Democratic incumbent, Nicole Cannizzaro, asking for a new election to be held. Becker challenged the use of processing machines to tabulate mail-in ballots. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit the following day.
Becker v. Gloria
On November 16, 2020, Republican state senate candidate April Becker filed a lawsuit in state court against the Clark County Registrar of Voters, Joseph P. Gloria, asking for a new election to be held. Becker challenged the mailing of ballots to all registered voters and the use of automated software Agilis to verify signatures, arguing that state law requires human review of the signatures. On November 24, the court denied the plaintiff’s request without prejudice.
Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada
On November 16, 2020, the Election Integrity Project of Nevada filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada, claiming to have found “extensive evidence” of voter fraud. The group asked for the election results to be invalidated and a new election to be ordered. On November 20, Clark County District Court Judge Gloria Sturman denied the request, calling it a “shocking ask”.
Law v. Whitmer
The Nevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign filed Law v. Whitmer on November 17, 2020, in the Nevada First Judicial District Court in Carson City. The six electors pledged to Biden are named as defendants, and the lawsuit asks to either pledge all six electors to Trump or else to annul the election results. This lawsuit uses “many of the same claims already rejected by local courts in previous lawsuits, including improper use of a signature verification machine and unfair observation rules,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
On November 25, 2020, a judge allowed the Trump campaign to present its evidence of fraud in the election. The judge set the hearing for December 3, and is allowing 15 depositions. On December 4, 2020, the court denied the plaintiff’s request, saying “Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election”.
Marchant v. Gloria
On November 16, 2020, Jim Marchant filed a lawsuit against Clark County Registrar of Voters, Joseph P. Gloria, asking for a new election to be held. Marchant, a Republican congressional candidate, lost his bid against Democratic incumbent Steven Horsford. Marchant claimed signatures were verified using a computer system, whereas Nevada state law requires signature verification to be conducted by humans. On November 23, Clark County District Court Judge Gloria Sturman dismissed the case, citing jurisdictional issues.
Rodimer v. Gloria
On November 19, 2020, Dan Rodimer filed a lawsuit in state court against the Clark County Registrar of Voters, Joseph P. Gloria, asking for a new election to be held. Rodimer, a congressional candidate who lost to Democratic Representative Susie Lee, claimed signatures on mail-in ballots were verified using a computer system whereas Nevada state law requires signature verification to be conducted by humans. The case was assigned to Clark County District Court Judge Gloria Sturman; the plaintiffs filed two motions asking Judge Sturman to recuse herself from the case, alleging that her connections to the Democratic party “rendered her too biased to preside over the case.” Chief Judge Linda Marie Bell reassigned the case, but noted that “nothing in the record reflects a prejudice on the part of Judge Sturman against Mr. Rodimer that would preclude Judge Sturman from deciding this case.” This lawsuit was filed by attorney Craig Mueller, who filed similar actions for losing Republican candidates. At a hearing on November 25, Judge Trevor Atkin dismissed the case, citing the court’s lack of jurisdiction and format issues.
Stokke v. Cegavske
On November 5, 2020, plaintiffs Jill Stokke, Chris Prudhome, Marchant for Congress, and Rodimer for Congress sued Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Clark County Registrar of Voters Joseph P. Gloria for illegal conduct. The initial complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on November 5, 2020, accused the defendants of “illegal conduct” across three counts, including “violations of the Elections Clause”, violations of Equal Protection Clause (enforceable under 18 U.S.C. § 1983), and the “violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.8881 and 293.363” respectively. The complaint cited irregularities in “over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots”, among 15 paragraphs of allegations of violating both state and federal law.
On November 5, 2020, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring defendants from violating Nevada law, the Elections Clauses, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, listing 14 counts, including the use of signature-verification software Agilis in Clark County. Plaintiffs additionally filed a motion to expedite the hearing and briefing, which was approved by Judge Gordon on November 6; however he did not agree with the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant’s conduct inflicted “irreparable” injury to the extent that a restraining order or temporary injunction was justified, and as such, denied the motion on the same day.
Judge Gordon signed an order on November 9, 2020, approving pro hac vice filings in regard to attorneys Abha Khanna, John M. Devaney, and Bradley S. Schrager. Perkins Coie attorneys based in Seattle and Washington, DC required permission from the court before getting involved with the case in Nevada. According to court documents, Perkins Coie was hired to represent the defendants by the Nevada Republican Party and Democratic National Committee.
The case was dropped by the plaintiffs on November 30, 2020.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania
In re: Canvassing Observation
In re: Canvassing Observation is a lawsuit filed on November 3, in which the Trump campaign sought closer access for poll observers to watch vote counting. The trial court ruled against the campaign, that a 15-foot (4.6 m) distance was adequate. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania sided with the campaign and ordered that poll observers be allowed to watch from a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m). On November 9, the state filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled 5–2 on November 17 against the Trump campaign, saying Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed in the room where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables; local county officials are left to decide. Chief Justice Thomas Saylor dissented, saying he would have declared the issue moot.
In re: Motion for Injunctive Relief of Northampton County Republican Committee
On November 3, 2020, a group including Republican candidates and officials made an oral motion in state court, asking the court to prevent the Northampton Board of Elections from identifying cancelled ballots in order to help voters cure them; the court denied the motion.
Barnette v. Lawrence
On November 4, 2020, 4th Congressional District candidate Kathy Barnette sued Montgomery County officials in federal district court. Barnette claimed the county’s board of elections violated the state’s election code by inspecting ballot envelopes for missing information, a process known as pre-canvassing, and by giving voters a chance to correct such deficiencies. Barnett also claimed that the federal equal protection clause was violated because only certain voters were allowed the chance to cure. Barnette asked the county to reject any affected ballots. On November 6, Judge Timothy Savage denied the plaintiffs’ request.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections
Donald J. Trump for President v. Kathy Boockvar and County Boards of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on November 4, by the Trump campaign. The campaign challenged guidance from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, who told voters they had until November 12 to provide proof of identification in order for their ballots to be counted, three days past the deadline set by state law. The judge ruled that ballots are not to be counted if identification has not been shown by November 9. This ruling affected a small number of ballots that were not included in the vote count.
Hamm v. Boockvar
Hamm v. Boockvar is a lawsuit filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on November 3. Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar, issued guidance that local election officials could allow voters who cast defective ballots to re-do their vote by casting a provisional ballot. The plaintiffs, several candidates who ran for office, argued that such guidance is illegal. The court ordered counties to set aside any provisional ballots cast by voters who sought to remedy defective initial ballots, and said it would rule on those ballots’ validity at a later date.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections
Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the state’s trial court on November 5, in which the Trump campaign sought to stop Montgomery County from counting ballots. The county’s Board of Elections allowed about 600 voters to fill in missing information on ballot envelopes before Election Day. The campaign argued for the ballots to be disqualified, but the judge ruled the instructions provided to voters were consistent with election law.
During the hearing, the judge asked the lawyer for the Trump campaign, Jonathan Goldstein, if Goldstein was “claiming that there is any fraud” or “any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots”. Goldstein replied ‘No.’ 
Goldstein’s answer to the court was consistent with the pleadings in the case brought by Goldstein which pleadings did not allege fraud and only made a technical challenge to the counting of certain ballots due to certain facial defects in those ballots. The Bucks County Common Pleas Court ruled the ballots should be counted. Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court, the Commonwealth Court, later ruled that certain Allegheny County ballots to which a similar challenge was made should not be counted for the reasons Goldstein argued in the Bucks County pleading, namely that the ballots did not comply with Pennsylvania’s laws governing the technical requirements of casting a ballot.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of Elections
Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in federal court on November 5, in which the Trump campaign sought to stop ballot counting in Philadelphia. The campaign argued that poll observers were not allowed in the counting room, but later admitted some observers were present. No ballots were at issue, and the case was settled upon mutual party agreement that Republicans and Democrats could have each have up to 60 poll watchers present to observe vote counting. The admission that Trump’s observers were in the counting room contradicted Trump’s later claims that his observers were prevented from entering vote counting rooms in Pennsylvania.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar
District Court case
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar is a lawsuit filed on November 9 by the Trump campaign against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The campaign challenged the results of the election, alleging and asked the court to prohibit the certification of results. The Ohio-based Porter Wright Morris & Arthur law firm that represented the Trump campaign withdrew from the case on November 13, and Linda A. Kerns, a Republican attorney also representing the Trump campaign, asked the judge for permission to withdraw from the case on November 16.[a] Overall, the case saw three different sets of lawyers within a week.
When the judge asked Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on why the plaintiffs did not advance legal claims based on voter fraud, Giuliani replied that “this is not a fraud case”. Giuliani had previously made public claims of “fraud”, “absolute fraud” in the election. Fellow Trump lawyer Linda Kerns also agreed that this lawsuit was not based on “allegations of fraud or misconduct”.
Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed the case with prejudice on November 21, citing “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations,” noting that “[i]n the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state … [o]ur people, laws and institutions demand more”. He likened the Trump team argument to “Frankenstein’s Monster“, and characterized the requested remedy to disqualify nearly seven million votes as “unhinged from the underlying right being asserted.”
Appeals Court case
The Trump campaign and other plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 22. In their revised brief, the campaign asked that the election be decertified and they be permitted to take a sample consisting of 1.5 million mail ballots to determine how many were defective, and deduct those votes from Biden’s total.
On November 27, a three-judge panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump campaign’s attempt to undo Pennsylvania’s vote certification, with the judges ruling that the Trump campaign’s “claims have no merit.” The panel stated that the Trump campaign was challenging far fewer ballots than Biden’s margin of victory, and “it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters.”
The panel praised the District Court for being “fast, fair, patient” in handling this case. It ruled that the District Court was correct in preventing the Trump campaign from conducting a second amendment of its complaint. The proposed amendment had not changed the fact that the Trump campaign had not alleged that it was being treated worse than the Biden campaign, stated the panel. Overall, “calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here”, stated the panel.
Of the three Appeal Court judges, Stephanos Bibas, who delivered the opinion, was appointed by Trump, while judges D. Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares were appointed by Republican president George W. Bush. Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis reacted to the verdict by condemning the “activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania”. Ellis also said that an appeal would be taken to the United States Supreme Court.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of Elections
Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Bucks County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed in the state’s trial court on November 9. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they “do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots”. They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, “misconduct”, or “impropriety” related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings.
In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election (Philadelphia County)
In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, General Election is a series of five lawsuits filed in the state’s trial court on November 10, in which the Trump campaign sought to disqualify over 8,000 absentee ballots counted by state officials. The ballots had outer envelopes which were signed by the voters but lacked other information. Judge James Crumlish denied all challenges to the ballots. The case was transferred to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the court rejected the Trump campaign’s appeals on November 23.
In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of Nov. 3, 2020, Gen. Election (Bucks County)
Judge Robert Baldi ruled that throwing out the absentee ballots would disenfranchise voters, and ordered the 2,000+ ballots in question be counted.
Pirkle v. Wolf
On November 10, 2020, four voters sued to block votes from being counted in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware and Allegheny counties. The plaintiffs claimed the state violated the right to equal protection by allowing counties to have varying practices for mail-in ballots. Porter Wright, the law firm that represented the Trump campaign, asked to withdraw. On November 16, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit. The claims made by plaintiffs in this lawsuit are similar to Brooks v. Mahoney and Bally v. Whitmer; these lawsuits were all filed by conservative lawyer James Bopp. The plaintiffs also cited Trump v. Boockvar.
Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections
On November 12, 2020, Nicole Ziccarelli, a Republican state Senate candidate, sued the Allegheny County Board of Elections. The plaintiffs claimed that the board improperly counted 2,349 mail-in ballots that were not dated by the voter, and sought to exclude these votes from being counted. On November 18, 2020, the state’s Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiffs request, ordering the votes to be counted. Ziccarelli appealed the decision on November 19; the following day, the state’s Commonwealth Court ruled that the election code requires the voter to date their ballot, and the 2,349 ballots in question should not be counted.
Kelly v. Pennsylvania
On November 22, 2020, U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and six other Republican representatives filed a suit in state court that claims that the General Assembly had no authority under the state constitution to enact no-excuse mail-in voting. They sued to stop the certification of electors until the issue could be resolved. Judge Patricia McCullough ruled to halt further state certifications pending a hearing. The state attorney general responded by filing an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court, which triggered an automatic stay on Judge McCullough’s order. On November 25, the Department of State issued a press release, stating: “Following certification of the presidential vote submitted by all 67 counties late Monday, [the Secretary] today certified the results of the November 3 election in Pennsylvania for president and vice president of the United States.” Having issued the press release (without updating the certified results on the State website), the defendants sought to moot the case. On November 27, Judge McCullough issued an opinion that explained her ruling to block the certification process, arguing that there is a reasonable constitutionality argument, the certification process had not been completed, and that the certification announcement was only for the President / Vice President race and not for the other races on the ballots.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on November 28 to unanimously overturn the Commonwealth Court’s order to block the certification of election results in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also dismissed with prejudice the requests of the Republicans to either invalidate all 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, or to invalidate all 6.9 million ballots in the state and have the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature choose the presidential electors for the state. The rationale for the decision was that the Republicans were challenging the law too late; they had been able to challenge the law since it came into force in October 2019, but only filed the lawsuit when the results of the November 2020 election were “becoming seemingly apparent”. Hence, the Republicans had failed to act with “due diligence” in their handling of the case.
Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in Wisconsin
Langenhorst v. Pecore
Three residents filed a lawsuit against clerks in Menominee County, Dane County, and Milwaukee counties in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, on November 11, 2020. The plaintiffs questioned the three counties that included a pandemic scenario in the definition of “indefinitely confined voters”. Despite the State Supreme Court’s ruling that the “advice [of including a pandemic scenario] was legally incorrect”, this interpretation still caused a surge in absentee ballots this year. Additionally, the witness signature requirement was also relaxed. As the result, the plaintiffs wanted the ballots in the 3 counties (estimated 800,000 ballots) invalidated.The Trump campaign also alleged that three people who legally cast absentee ballots prior to election day died in the interim. Ann Jacobs of the Wisconsin Elections Commission stated: “They all died after they voted, so they were alive when they voted, and they died in the interim. With the coronavirus raging, it should not be a particular surprise to anyone. But also, that’s really normal. People die. People die every month in the state of Wisconsin.”> The plaintiffs dropped the suit on November 16.
Wisconsin Voters Alliance vs. Wisconsin Elections Commission
On November 23, 2020, a group of Republican voters, the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, filed a lawsuit in the Wisconsin Supreme Court against the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The voters claimed that a Mark Zuckerberg-funded organization, Center for Technology and Civic Life, gave $6 million to the cities of Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee in order to facilitate the casting of tens of thousands of illegal ballots. The group said Trump would have won the state without the inclusion of those ballots; as a remedy, they asked the court to stop the certification of the election, allow the state legislature to appoint electors, and order the governor to certify those electors. On November 24, Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul released a statement saying the litigation seeks to disenfranchise voters, and that his department “will ensure that Wisconsin’s presidential electors are selected based on the will of the more than 3 million Wisconsin voters who cast a ballot.”
Mueller v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
On November 27, 2020, attorney Karen L. Mueller petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of her husband, Dean W. Mueller of Chippewa Falls. Mueller alleged that the Wisconsin Elections Commission encouraged the collection of absentee ballots via drop boxes, without the proper rule-making authority to do so. Mueller asked the court to invalidate ballots collected at drop-boxes, the number of which is unclear; hold a new election; or otherwise block the certification of the state’s election results, where Joe Biden won by about 20,000 votes, and direct the state legislature to appoint electors.
Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
On December 1, 2020, Bill Feehan, the La Crosse County Republican Party chairman, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission in federal court. The plaintiffs, represented by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell, claimed that Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, companies that provide voting software and hardware across the U.S., were used to conduct electronic ballot-stuffing and rig votes for Joe Biden. The plaintiffs also claimed that “indefinitely confined voters declared themselves so illegally, in-person absentee ballots are invalid and clerks illegally completed addresses on absentee ballots.” As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked the court to decertify the state’s election results, declare Donald Trump the winner of the state, or invalidate the absentee ballots at issue. The filing contained several misspellings and factual errors. Listed among the plaintiffs was Derrick Van Orden, a Republican candidate for Congress who lost his race; Van Orden said he did not give permission to be listed as a litigant. The lawsuit also sought footage of vote counting at the TCF Center, which is not located in Wisconsin but in Michigan.
On December 2, U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper filed an order, noting that the plaintiffs filed a draft which did not comply with basic rules, and did not ask for a hearing or propose a briefing schedule.
One of my subscribers sent this.