by Natalia Mittelstadt
Several election lawsuits filed recently with significant impact on the 2024 presidential election have been decided in favor of election integrity proponents, ensuring laws remain enforced ahead of the November election.
The lawsuits filed focused on candidate eligibility, different changes in law, and alleged violations of election laws. Most of them have resulted in wins for election integrity, while two are ongoing.
In 2020, there were as many as 400 lawsuits brought by both Republicans and Democrats regarding election procedures and laws as election administration was quickly changed during the COVID-19 lockdowns leading up to the presidential election. All of the lawsuits this year greatly impact how the 2024 presidential election will be conducted.
Marshall Trigg, junior counsel for Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), wrote for The Daily Caller last month regarding recent election integrity legal wins, “Legislation has been tightened, highly skilled lawyers have taken over cases, COVID hysteria is gone and there are far fewer legal justifications for evading the core issues in the courtroom.”
Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that former President Donald Trump could remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in a decision that came one day before the Colorado Republican primary after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the top Republican contender was ineligible.
In the case of Donald Trump v. Norma Anderson, the Colorado respondents argued that the former president should be taken off the primary ballot because he allegedly “incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.”
Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado brought the lawsuit. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a ruling of a lower court, deciding that under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” Trump was disqualified from holding the office of president. Trump appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on the basis that “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.”
Pennsylvania State Conference of the NAACP v. Chapman
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in March that Pennsylvania may enforce state law requiring envelopes for mail-in ballots to be dated and include the voter’s signature.
In that case, the plaintiff sued the then-acting secretary of the commonwealth in 2022 regarding Pennsylvania’s decision to void mail-in ballots that are either missing a date on the outer return envelopes or have an incorrect date.
Pennsylvania counties were ordered by a lower court following a Republican lawsuit in 2022 to reject undated or incorrectly dated mail-in ballots. The issue was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
After a three-judge panel of the circuit court fuled in favor of the law, the Pennsylvania NAACP requested a rehearing en banc but was denied by the court.
Libertarian Party of MS v Wetzel et. al
In February, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Mississippi Libertarian Party, challenging a state law that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. In Mississippi, absentee ballots could be received as long as five days following the election.
Judicial Watch argues that under a recently enacted federal law, there cannot be an extension of Election Day barring any catastrophic events.
The Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party also filed a lawsuit challenging this election law, and the court consolidated the two cases. The case is ongoing.
Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and Eric Lovelis v. Maricopa County
In February, America First Legal (AFL) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Strong Communities Foundation of Arizona and a voter against Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County recorder.
The lawsuit alleged that Maricopa County has violated multiple state election laws, such as refusing to maintain chain of custody for ballots and requiring in-person ballot curing for voters, as well as using artificial intelligence for signature verification on ballots instead of only humans.
AFL withdrew the lawsuit and filed a new complaint against the counties of Maricopa, Coconino, and Yavapai in a court in Yavapai County.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled last month in favor of Maricopa County’s motion that the lawsuit against the county should not take place in Yavapai County but instead in Maricopa County.
Susan Liebert et. al v. Don Millis et. al
Last month, a Wisconsin federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that sought to toss out the witness requirement for absentee voting.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson on Thursday granted summary judgment against a lawsuit brought by Democratic-aligned election lawyer Marc Elias’ law firm that attempted to cancel the witness requirement for voters who cast absentee ballots. Elias Law Group argued that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a losing party 30 days to file a notice of appeal, but as of yet no such notice has been filed.
– – –
Natalia Mittelstadt is a reporter for Just the News.
Photo “Election Day 2020” by Phil Roeder. CC BY 2.0.
