by Natalia Mittelstadt
Several recently filed election lawsuits that had a significant impact on the 2024 presidential election have been resolved in favor of election integrity advocates, ensuring enforcement ahead of the November election.
The lawsuits filed focused on candidate eligibility, various changes in the law and alleged election law violations. Most of them resulted in election integrity victories, and two of them are ongoing.
In 2020 it was as many as 400 lawsuits brought by Republicans and Democrats over election procedures and rules as election administration was quickly changed during Covid-19 restrictions leading up to the presidential election. All this year’s trials have a huge impact on the course of the 2024 presidential elections.
Marshall Trigg, Junior Advisor for Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), wrote for Daily conversationalist last month regarding recent legal victories on election integrity: “Legislation has been tightened, highly skilled lawyers have taken over cases, the pandemic hysteria has passed, and there are far fewer legal justifications for avoiding key issues in the courtroom.”
Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson
In March, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously, it would be President Donald Trump stay on the 2024 presidential ballot, a decision made the day before Colorado’s Republican primary following a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that the Republican primary candidate was ineligible.
In case of Donald Trump v. Norma AndersonColorado respondents he argued that the former president should be removed from the primary elections because he allegedly “inciteted the January 6, 2021 insurrection.”
Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado filed a lawsuit. Colorado Supreme Court overturned the ruling lower court, stating that under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment “insurrection clause“Trump has been disqualified from holding the office of president. Trump filed an appeal ruling to the United States Supreme Court which overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on the basis that “Because the Constitution gives Congress, not the states, the responsibility for enforcing the provisions of Section 3 against federal officials and nominees.”
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Chapman
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in March that Pennsylvania could enforce a state law requiring mail-in ballot envelopes to be dated and include the voter’s signature.
In that case the plaintiff filed a lawsuit then-acting Secretary of State in 2022 over Pennsylvania’s decision to invalidate mail-in ballots that are missing the date on the outer return envelopes or are incorrectly dated.
Following a 2022 Republican lawsuit, a lower court ordered Pennsylvania counties to reject undated or incorrectly dated absentee ballots. The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
After a three-judge panel of the district court ruled in favor of the law, the Pennsylvania NAACP requested an en banc rehearing, but the court refused.
Libertarian Party MS v. Wetzel et al. aluminum
In February, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Mississippi Libertarian Party, challenging a state law that allows absentee ballots to be accepted and counted after Election Day. In Mississippi, absentee ballots could be received up to five days after the election.
Judicial Watch argues that under recently passed federal law, Election Day cannot be extended unless some catastrophic event occurs.
Republican National Committee and Mississippi Republican Party also filed a lawsuit challenging this electoral law, and the court consolidated the two cases. The case is ongoing.
Strong Communities of Arizona Foundation and Eric Lovelis v. Maricopa County
In February, America First Legal (AFL) filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and voting against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County Recorder.
The lawsuit alleged that Maricopa County violated multiple state election laws, such as refusing to maintain control of ballots and requiring voters to inspect ballots in person, as well as using artificial intelligence to verify signatures on ballots, not just humans.
The AFL withdrew the lawsuit and filed a novel complaint against Maricopa, Coconino and Yavapai Counties in the Yavapai County Court.
Arizona Court of Appeals ruled last month in favor of Maricopa County’s motion that the lawsuit against the county be brought not in Yavapai County but in Maricopa County.
Susan Liebert et al w. Don Millis et al
Last month, a Wisconsin federal judge dismissed the lawsuit which aimed to reject the requirement for a witness to be present for postal voting.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson granted summary judgment Thursday in a lawsuit brought by the law firm of Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, which sought to eliminate the witness requirement for voters who cast absentee ballots. The Elias Law Group argued that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give the losing party 30 days to file an appeal, but so far no such notice has been filed.
– – –
Natalia Mittelstadt is a reporter for Just the News.
“Election Day 2020” photo by Phil Roeder. CC BY 2.0.
