IF YOU ask any liberal on Trump’s election lawsuits, they’ll make a blanket statement like “he’s lost every single one of them.” This claim is often repeated by mainstream media, social media content moderators and so-called fact checkers.
What no one is talking about is just how many lawsuits there are and the fact that Trump is still fighting and still winning according to new analysis.
“In Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered Decisions Are Favourable to Trump”
To achieve this analysis John Droz a Citizen Journalist from Morehead City, N.C and a team of volunteers dug through Court filings and legal minutiae to track down 81 lawsuits that were filed in connection with the November 3rd 2020 Presidential election. The lawsuits are tracked on Droz’s publicly available spreadsheet current as of February 6th.
Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated and 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. (The cohort of these 34 cases should not be considered “wins or losses for either side,” Droz says, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”).
This leaves 47 cases. Of those 47, 22 have been finalised after the Court heard arguments, considered evidence, and then issued a ruling. Of those 22 decided on their merit, Trump or Republicans won 15 and lost 7, according to the analysis.
This means Trump and Republicans “have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and decided on their merits” Droz said in a statement. This leaves 25 lawsuits yet to be disposed of.
RNC v. Miller, in the Iowa courts, a lawsuit in which the Republican National Committee won an injunction over absentee ballot applications.
RNC v. Gill, in the Iowa courts, in which the Trump campaign won an injunction preventing a county official from distributing and accepting signed forms containing pre-printed information.
Trump for President v. Boockvar, in the Pennsylvania courts, in which the Trump campaign was granted an injunction against the counting of mail-in and absentee ballots where voters were allowed to provide proof of identity days after Election Day.
Droz noted that only three lawsuits addressed voting machine inaccuracies. “One of these was dismissed (due to jurisdiction), one was ruled against (although no discovery was granted), and one is still open (discovery was granted).”
“The likely explanation for so few cases in these two areas is that legally proving fraud or
voting machine manipulations are very time-consuming processes, that require substantial investigative work and documentation. There simply wasn’t enough time to do this prior to key points in the process like the Electoral College.”
Maricopa County Officials Approve Forensic Audit of Election Systems
Maricopa County in Arizona agreed to carry out a comprehensive forensic audit of its voting systems to allay concerns raised by constituents about the integrity of the November 2020 election.
A vulnerability analysis will be performed, along with a check for malware and a test to verify that tabulators didn’t send or receive information over the internet. Additionally, a logic and accuracy test of the county’s tabulation equipment will be conducted to verify whether ballots were counted accurately and to confirm that no votes were switched.
Arizona state Sen. Warren Peterson stated “a county audit will not prevent the Senate from doing their own audit. My concern with the county audit is that the scope of the audit is an inch deep. With the limited scope they have asked to be audited, they are guaranteed to find nothing.”
The county board has resisted the Senate’s requests, arguing that they were too broad, while trying to negotiate a settlement.
Arizona’s state Senate has now turned up the heat on Maricopa officials who refused to comply with a subpoena demanding they hand over election equipment. The legislation cites an Arizona law allowing the Senate’s sergeant at arms to arrest anyone disobeying a legislative subpoena.
The Supreme Court is set to “consider” high profile election cases at its February conference. The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January. But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness.
In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden’s inauguration, their success would be unlikely.
“Former President Donald Trump’s attorney John Eastman stated:- “Our legal issue remains important and in need of the court’s review.”
Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states
The potential cases include challenges to the 2020 presidential election from attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, (both of whom have been banned from Twitter), along with Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit.
Mike Kelly’s lawsuit argued that the state of Pennsylvania violated its own Constitution by changing the mail-in election rules having it done by the state legislature and that “no-excuse” mail-in voting “violated the state constitution’s limits on who can cast an absentee ballot.”
Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough originally ruled to halt the certification of the election results. The Judge stated in a November memorandum:
“Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment.”
This Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim”.
All the actions being taken by state legislatures now, and decisions being made by judges, will help prevent this in the future but the damage to the 2020 election is already done.