record of Trump lawsuits

[VitaMan]

Guess you need to be shown. Perhaps next time you can do research before making false claims.




USA TODAY has broken it down.




Election lawsuits: 62


The president and his allies filed 62 lawsuits in state and federal courts seeking to overturn election results in states the president lost, according to Marc Elias, a Democratic election lawyer who is tracking the outcomes.


Election lawsuit defeats: 61


Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.


Some cases were dismissed for lack of standing and others based on the merits of the voter fraud allegations. The decisions have came from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges – including federal judges appointed by Trump.


State Supreme Courts in Arizona, Nevada and Arizona each rejected or declined to hear Trump’s appeals to overturn results in those states, while the Pennsylvania and Michigan supreme courts denied multiple lawsuits.


A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Arizona that argued state legislatures should have met after the election to certify votes.


The lone victory for the Trump team was a small one. A Pennsylvania judge sided with the Trump campaign, ruling that voters could not go back and “cure” their ballots if they failed to provide proper identification three days after the election.

[VitaMan]

"There were over 60 court cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and said there is not widespread fraud."


CLC’s researched the cases.


Post-Election Cases Decided on the Merits:


Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020) – In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three of Trump’s four claims under the doctrine of laches. However, it decided on the merits Trump’s claim that voters wrongfully declared themselves indefinitely confined. Ultimately, the court ruled against Trump on this claim because Trump challenged the status of all voters who claimed an indefinitely confined status, rather than individual voters. Trump petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on Dec. 29, 2020 with a motion for expedited consideration, but the court denied his motion to expedite on January 11.





Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020) – The district court dismissed Trump’s claim that Wisconsin officials violated his rights under the Electors Clause because said officials allegedly issued guidance on state election statutes that deviated significantly from the requirements of Wisconsin’s election statutes. First, the court found that interpretations of election administration rules do not fall under the meaning of “Manner” in the Electors Clause. Moreover, even if “Manner” were read so broadly, the defendants had acted consistently with, and as expressly authorized by, the Wisconsin Legislature; their issued guidance did not significantly or materially depart from legislative direction. Thus, there was no violation of the Electors Clause. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 24, 2020. Trump filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 30, 2020 along with a motion for expedited consideration, and the court denied Trump’s motion to expedite on January 11.




King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.




Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest. First, plaintiff’s evidence failed to show fraud or misconduct—rather, it showed that the duplication process of the presidential election was 99.45% accurate, and that the inaccuracies were caused by human error. Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show illegal votes or an erroneous vote count. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the Court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.




Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020.




Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2020) – While the district court found that Trump lacked standing, the court decided to touch upon the merits of his Equal Protection claim, ultimately rejecting the claim. The district court held that different counties implementing different types of notice-and-cure policies (many implementing none) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause does not require complete equality in all situations—“a classification resulting in ‘some inequality’ will be upheld unless it is based on an inherently suspect characteristic or ‘jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right.’” The district court highlighted the fact that the notice-and-cure policies adopted by certain counties imposed no burden on voters, and that it would be impossible to require every single county to administer elections in exactly the same way. The U.S. Court for Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed this decision on Nov. 27, 2020.




Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of a plaintiff—a registered voter—could be dismissed either for lack of standing or under the doctrine of laches, the court nonetheless ruled on the merits. First, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim because there was no disparate treatment among Georgia voters. Next, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Elections and Electors Clauses claim because Secretary Brad Raffensperger had not overridden or rewritten any state law. Finally, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Due Process claim because there is no individual constitutional right to observe the electoral process (i.e., monitor an audit or vote recount). The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 5, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8, 2020 and filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.




Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020) – The district court largely dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds of lack of standing. However, the court did touch upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were largely based on, “anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” For one, the declarations from poll watchers that the plaintiffs provided as proof of fraud did not actually allege fraud at all, but rather simply raised concerns about the manner and process by which election officials matched signatures on absentee ballots. Moreover, none of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses stated that defendants committed any fraud; instead, they only provided speculative statements about what “could have” happened. Additionally, one of the plaintiffs’ experts relied on a study with no information about its author or methodologies involved. Finally, the court found the plaintiffs’ claim of alleged voting machine hacking to be unconvincing since the voting machines’ behavior could be easily explained by standard voting machine protocol. The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2020, and the court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency petition on January 11.




Costantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020) – In denying the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud would unlikely prevail on the merits. The court noted that many plaintiffs failed to include crucial information in their allegations, such as locations of alleged misconduct, frequency of alleged misconduct, names of those involved in alleged misconduct, and so on. Overall, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to be speculative, filled with “guess-work,” and often unsubstantiated. Moreover, defendants provided a sufficient amount of evidence to convince the court that they had acted within the law. This decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 16, 2020, and by the Michigan Supreme Court on Nov. 23, 2020.




Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) – The superior court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay legal fees for bringing a “groundless,” bad faith lawsuit challenging Maricopa County election procedures. The court noted that the relief plaintiff sought—an additional hand count of ballots—was not legally available due to the suit’s numerous procedural defects. The court found that plaintiff did not adequately assess the validity of their claims before filing the suit, and thus failed to prove that the county had inappropriately applied the statute in question. The court determined that plaintiff brought the suit for the “improper purpose” of undermining Arizonans’ confidence in election results, rather than to defend election integrity as they claimed.


Given the sheer number of election-related cases that lacked merit, federal judges in states like Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin have begun moving to consider and, in at least one instance thus far, implement sanctions against the lawyers that submitted them. For instance, according to a July 16 article from The Washington Post, a federal judge in Michigan began questioning Sidney Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers to decide whether to sanction the group for submitting a lawsuit crafted on false information that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election. On August 25, the judge imposed sanctions on Powell and the other pro-Trump lawyers, recommending that their respective state bars investigate whether they should be suspended or disbarred.

[VitaMan]

Pennsylvania


3rd U.S. Court of Appeals: In Bognet v. Boockvar, Republicans argued that the extended mail-in ballot deadline challenged the constitution.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Barnette v. Lawrence, the GOP lawsuit claimed that Montgomery County wrongly allowed mail-in voters the chance to cure ballots.


Status: Dismissed.


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign argued that there was insufficient access by observers.


Status: Denied. The Trump campaign later admitted that there were a "nonzero number of people in the room" observing the vote count, including some affiliated with the campaign. Judge Paul S. Diamond shot back, "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"


U.S. District Court, Middle District: In Pirkle v. Wolf, four voter plaintiffs generalized allegations of fraud, based on complaints issued by third parties.


Status: Withdrawn.


Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In response to the Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots, Republicans claim that Philadelphia did not give election observers enough access.


Status: Denied. The court reversed the petition allowing an appeal. The court rejected the Trump campaign's claim that mail-in ballots with minor flaws must be rejected.


Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Hamm v. Boockvar, Republicans claimed that the state wrongly allowed voters to cast provisional ballots to cure invalid mail ballots.


Status: Denied.


Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: Northampton Republicans challenged notifications of votes that were canceled during prescreening.


Status: Withdrawn.


Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign challenged the three-day deadline extension given to mail-in voters missing identification to supply proof of identification.


Status: Relief granted. The court found that the secretary of state had no authority to provide an extension. The secretary of state's office has said the total number of votes is probably fewer than 100 statewide.


Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County: Both the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign challenged over 2,000 mail-in ballots.


Status: Denied.


Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas: In Trump v. Montgomery County Board of Elections, the Trump campaign and the RNC challenged about 600 mail-in ballots that lacked voters' addresses.


Status: Withdrawn.


U.S. Supreme Court: In Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, Republicans challenged the extended mail-in ballot deadline.


Status: Active.


3rd Circuit Court of Appeals: In Trump v. Boockvar, the campaign is arguing that different provisional ballot practices violate equal protection.


Status: Denied.
A federal judge on Saturday dismissed the suit in a scathing opinion: "This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together," Judge Matthew Brann wrote.
The Trump campaign appealed the ruling earlier this week, but their appeal was denied. The ruling states that "calling an election unfair does not make it so."


Pennsylvania Supreme Court: The Trump campaign appealed a Philadelphia County Board of Elections decision to count five different categories of mail-in and absentee ballots.


Status: Denied. The court is reviewing whether the state election code allows curing some mail-in ballots by casting provisional ballots.


Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections, Nicole Ziccarelli, a GOP legislative candidate, challenged 2,349 undated mail-in ballots.


Status: Denied.


Court of Common Pleas for Westmoreland County: Ziccarelli is also challenging a small number of provisional ballots.


Status: Relief granted.


Pennsylvania Supreme Court: In Kelly v. Pennsylvania, a group of Republicans, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, claimed that the state's no-excuse mail ballot law violates the state constitution. They sought an order blocking certification of most mail-in votes or that directs the state Assembly to choose the presidential electors.


Status: Denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' appeal.


Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: Metcalfe v. Wolf, repeats claims of voter fraud, alleging that thousands of illegal ballots were cast and that drop boxes for ballots were improperly allowed.


Status: Denied.


U.S. Supreme Court: In Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., the state of Texas filed suit against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin alleging that fraud and mistakes damaged the presidential election in those states.


Status: Denied. 126 congressional Republicans, including House Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., signed on to a brief asking that the Electoral College selects a candidate for president by "counting only legal votes." The Supreme Court rejected the case on Friday, citing a "lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution."


Trump lawsuit fails to overturn Pennsylvania election results
02:07
Michigan


U.S. District Court, Western District: In Johnson/Stoddard v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.


Status: Withdrawn.


Michigan Supreme Court: In Johnson v. Benson, two Trump supporters made generalized allegations of voter fraud.


Status: Denied. In a 4-3 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court denied relief.


U.S. District Court, Western District: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign claimed that Wayne County denied election challengers proper access to watch election workers handle ballots.


Status: Withdrawn


Wayne County Circuit Court: In Constantino v. Detroit, two Republican poll challengers alleged irregularities in the vote at the TCF Center.


Status: Denied.


Wayne County Circuit Court: In Stoddard v. Detroit, the plaintiffs claimed that ballots were improperly duplicated by Democratic Party inspectors.


Status: Denied.


Michigan Court of Claims: In Trump v. Benson, the campaign sought to have more poll observers watch the vote count.


Status: Denied. In her opinion, Judge Cynthia D. Stephens said that the case was "inadmissible hearsay within hearsay."


U.S. District Court, Western District: In Bally v. Whitmer, a group of voters disputed election results in three counties based on allegations of voting irregularities and fraud.


Status: Withdrawn.


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In King v. Whitmer, a group of Michigan Republicans asked a federal judge to reverse Biden's victory in Michigan, an outcome that was formally certified earlier this month.


Status: Denied.


Wisconsin


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Langenhorst v. Pecore, Republicans made generalized allegations of voter fraud that relied on third-party accounts.


Status: Dismissed.


Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Election Commission, a conservative group claims that the five cities of Kenosha, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee and Racine illegally accepted grants from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerburg to improve election systems. They also claim that officials failed to get voter identification for some mail-in ballots.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell is alleging fraud with voting machines.


Status: Dismissed.


Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Trump v. Evers, the Trump campaign seeks to invalidate mail ballots it claims were improperly included during the canvas in Milwaukee and Dane counties.


Status: Denied.


Wisconsin Supreme Court: In Mueller v. Wisconsin, the lawsuit claims drop boxes were placed without proper authority and seeks nullification of any ballots placed in them. It accuses Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of leading a propaganda campaign to encourage their use, part of a "treacherous operation to interfere with the presidential election."


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Trump campaign claims that state election officials made ballots and drop boxes available in a manner not allowed by the state legislature.


Status: Dismissed.


Arizona


Maricopa County Superior Court: In Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes, the Republicans sought a hand recount of the ballots cast in Maricopa County by precinct. The GOP does not allege fraud, but it claims that the audit of votes did not meet state law.


Status: Dismissed.


Maricopa County Superior Court: In Trump v. Hobbs, the Trump campaign claimed that using Sharpies to fill in mail-in ballots caused an overvote and invalidated ballots.


Status: Dismissed.


Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Ward v. Jackson, Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona Republican Party and a Trump elector, alleges misconduct in the elections administration and seeks that the vote certification by Gov. Doug Ducey be annulled.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court: In Bowyer v. Ducey, involves Texas lawyer Sidney Powell and alleges "massive election fraud" involving Dominion voting systems. These claims are similar to those in other lawsuits.


Status: Denied. The plaintiffs filed an appeal.


Superior Court for the State of Arizona: In Stevenson v. Ducey, the plaintiffs contested the election results.


Status: Dismissed voluntarily.


Arizona Superior Court: In Burk v. Ducey, the plaintiffs claim illegal ballots were counted in the vote totals, while attacking the use of Dominion voting machines.


Status: Active.


Nevada


Clark County District Court: In Election Integrity Project v. Nevada, the plaintiffs claimed that Nevada's vote-by-mail structure is unconstitutional. The suit was filed in September.


Status: Denied.


1st Judicial District Court, Carson City: In Law v. Whitmer, Trump's six electors claimed irregularities, including the improper use of scanning machines to verify signatures.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court: In Stokke v. Cegavske, the plaintiffs sought to stop the use of automated signature matching in Clark County.


Status: Withdrawn.


Nevada Supreme Court: In Kraus v. Cegavske, the Trump campaign, the Nevada GOP and a Republican voter and count-watcher named Fred Kraus sued to stop the use of automated signature matching.


Status: Dismissed. The parties reached an agreement to allow for more observers.


Clark County District Court: In Becker v. Gloria, April Becker, a state Senate candidate, challenged the use of automated systems to match mail-in ballot signatures and the mailing of ballots to all registered voters.


Status: Denied.


Clark County District Court: In Marchant v. Gloria, Jim Marchant, a congressional candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and for mailing ballots to all registered voters.


Status: Dismissed.


Clark County District Court: In Rodimer v. Gloria, Daniel Rodimer, a state legislative candidate, challenged the use of automated systems for signature-matching and mailing ballots to all registered voters.


Status: Dismissed.


Georgia


U.S. District Court, Northern District: In Wood v. Raffensperger, an Atlanta lawyer and Trump supporter sought an injunction to prevent a statewide canvass, arguing that a consent decree wrongly imposes an invalid procedure to verify voter signatures.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court, Northern Division: Pearson v. Kemp makes many of the claims alleged by Texas lawyer Sidney Powell, including that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems allowed Democratic officials to fraudulently add votes for Biden.


Status: Dismissed. The plaintiffs intend to appeal.


Fulton County Superior Court: In Wood v. Raffensberger, a conservative group is behind a lawsuit claiming that thousands of illegal votes were counted and that funds contributed by Mark Zuckerberg tainted the election. The suit seeks to invalidate the presidential election results.


Status: Denied.


Fulton County Superior Court: In Boland v. Raffensperger, the plaintiff claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. Seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.


Status: Denied.


U.S. District Court, Southern District: In Brooks v. Mahoney, four Republican voters claimed that a voting machine software glitch caused a miscounting of votes.


Status: Dismissed.


Chatham County Superior Court: The Georgia Republican Party and the Trump campaign sought a reminder that mail-in ballots arriving late would not be counted.


Status: Dismissed.


Fulton County Superior Court: Boland v. Raffensperger claims more than 20,000 ballots were cast by non-residents and that counties did not properly screen mail ballot signatures. The complaint seeks an audit or, if none is granted, decertification of the election results.


Status: Denied.


Minnesota


Minnesota Supreme Court: In Kistner v. Simon, several Republican candidates make generalized claims of voting irregularities. The lawsuit sought to block the state's certification of votes until an audit of the returns could be completed.


Status: Denied.


Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Quist v. Simon, the plaintiffs claim the secretary of state created procedural changes that made the ballot counting process "overly broad, arbitrary, disparate and ad hoc."


Status: Active.


Minnesota District Court, 2nd Judicial District: In Jensen v. Simon, the plaintiffs seek to contest election results under the claim that invalid votes were counted.


Status: Active.


New Mexico


U.S. District Court: In Trump v. Toulouse Oliver, the Trump campaign claims the secretary of state allowed ballot drop boxes without legislative authority. The plaintiffs ask the judge to void Biden's elector certificate and "remand to the state of New Mexico legislature pursuant to appoint electors."


Status: Active.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Almost all were tossed out due to no evidence.

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Wrong again

correct. all 2020 election challenges were dismissed on technicalities like standing/jurisdiction not one on evidence. the left made sure they never got that far.

[VitaMan]

Incorrect.



Many were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Trump and his lawyers gave no evidence of their claims.
The judges decided that. The left had nothing to do with those judges decisions.



There are 10 above your post that were decided on merit.

[Salty Again]

... Good News is you're in luck with this, Vita. ...

Coming next year will be a Federal Investigation into the 2020
election AND the lot of legal cases that you've mentioned.

Just to be clear, however - some of the cases you've
mentioned here are NOT cases brought by President Trump.

But thank you for calling our attention to the record
number of lawsuits and the results of most of 'em... ...

#### Salty