Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Tracking election disputes, lawsuits, and recounts

This article covers subjects specific to the 2020 general election. It has not been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
Click here for more information about our 2020 election coverage.

Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk

Use the buttons below to see Help Desk hubs for other years. 2022 »

Disputed results Presidential election lawsuits and recounts Post-election lawsuits

Frequently asked questions General questions Presidential election Processing/counting mail ballots Results and certification Disputing results • Officeholder transitions

Absentee/mail-in voting analysis Mail-in voting by state, 2016-2018 Mail-in rejection by state, 2016-2018 Uncalled races, 2018 When can states begin counting? Processing, counting, and challenging ballots

Voting in 2020 Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Voter ID Poll opening and closing times Recount laws by state Recount margin requirements by state U.S. Supreme Court actions

Elections by state AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Election recounts can happen automatically or be requested by candidates or voters. Additionally, government officials, voters, candidates, campaigns, and satellite groups all may, in various circumstances and states, file election-related lawsuits. This article lists post-election lawsuits and recounts in elections held on November 3, 2020.

Post-November 3, we tracked the following:

• 100 lawsuits, in 15 states and the District of Columbia, were filed.
  • Of these, 34 lawsuits, in eight states and the District of Columbia, directly involved either the Democratic or Republican presidential campaigns.
• Two presidential recounts (in Georgia and Wisconsin) were conducted.

Lawsuits and recounts involving the presidential election

See also: Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Presidential election results subject to lawsuits and recounts

Lawsuits

The following is a list of post-election lawsuits involving the presidential election. Where available, case names and numbers, states of origin, courts of origin, and links to complaints and docket reports are provided.

Noteworthy lawsuits in the 2020 presidential election

Arizona

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Hobbs

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Hobbs
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Arizona)
• Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
• Issue: Whether ballots with facial irregularities (e.g., apparent overvotes, stray markings, etc.) cast in-person on Election Day were illegally disqualified without additional review.
• Current status/outcome: Attorneys for the Trump campaign dropped the lawsuit.
• Order/decision date: November 13, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 7, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) and Maricopa County election officials in Maricopa County Superior Court, alleging that ballots with facial irregularities cast in person on Election Day in the county were illegally disqualified without additional review. Facial irregularities include ink splotches, stray markings, and other voter errors that could be registered by tabulating machines as apparent overvotes. Attorneys for the campaign alleged that "numerous voters were alerted ... to a facial irregularity in their ballot – frequently an ostensible 'overvote' – but were induced by poll workers to override the tabulator's rejection of the ballot in the good faith belief that their vote would be duly registered and tabulated." The campaign's lawyers further alleged that "overriding the electronic tabulator's alert automatically disqualifies the putative 'overvotes' without additional review or adjudication," in violation of state law. The campaign asked the court for an order requiring Maricopa County officials to review all such ballots. The campaign also asked the court to bar officials from canvassing or certifying results, pending completion of that review.

  On November 13, 2020, attorneys for the Trump campaign filed dropped the lawsuit, writing in a notice to the court that "the tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling" on the presidential election.

District of Columbia

Michigan Welfare Rights Organization v. Trump

• Case name: Michigan Welfare Rights Organization v. Trump
• Related election/s: Presidential election
• Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
• Issue: Whether Trump and his campaign violated the Voting Rights Act by illegally pressuring election officials not to certify election results, thereby disenfranchising Black voters.
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 20, 2020, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and three Michigan residents filed suit against President Donald Trump (R) and his reelection campaign in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs allege that Trump and his campaign "are openly seeking to disenfranchise Black voters" by "pressuring state and local officials in Michigan not to count votes from Wayne County, Michigan (where Detroit is the county seat), and thereby disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters." The plaintiffs asked the court to bar Trump, his campaign, and anyone acting on their behalf "from continuing to exert pressure on state or local officials in Michigan, or in any other state, to disenfranchise Plaintiffs or other Black voters by not certifying the results of the November 2020 election, or by appointing an unlawful slate of electors."

Georgia

In re: enforcement of election laws and securing ballots cast of received after 7:00 P.M. on November 3, 2020

• Case name: In re: enforcement of election laws and securing ballots cast of received after 7:00 P.M. on November 3, 2020
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Georgia)
• Court: Chatham County Superior Court
• Issue: Whether absentee/mail-in ballots received after the statutory receipt deadline had been illegally accepted and mixed with ballots received prior to the deadline.
• Current status/outcome: The court dismissed the lawsuit.
• Order/decision date: November 5, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 4, 2020, the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party filed suit in the Chatham County Superior Court, alleging that the Chatham County Board of Elections had failed "to safely store absentee ballots" and might be illegally accepting "absentee ballots arriving after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day." The plaintiffs alleged that this "frustrates [the] organizational mission and dilutes lawful votes for Republican candidates in state, local, and federal contests." The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from registered poll watcher Sean Pumphrey, who said he saw 53 ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day mixed in with ballots received before that time. The plaintiffs asked the court to require Chatham County election officials to segregate ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day and "provide an accounting of all such absentee ballots, including the number of ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day, the name of the absentee voter, and the time and date that such absentee ballot was received" to the plaintiffs.

  On November 5, 2020, Judge James F. Bass, Jr., dismissed the lawsuit: "[The] Court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day, thereby making those ballots invalid. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Chatham County Board of Elections or the Chatham County Board of Registrars has failed to comply with the law."

Trump v. Kemp

• Case name: Trump v. Kemp
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Georgia)
• Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
• Issue: Whether state election officials failed to conduct the presidential election in accordance with state law and, if so, whether the court should decertify the election results and direct the Georgia General Assembly to appoint a slate of presidential electors.
• Current status/outcome: The court dismissed the lawsuit.
• Order/decision date: January 5, 2021
• Order/opinion link: Order

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 31, 2020, Trump filed suit against Governor Brian Kemp (R) and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R)) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Trump alleged that Kemp and Raffensperger illegally certified "an election that was conducted contrary to the 'Manner' for choosing presidential electors that had been established by the Legislature of the State of Georgia in violation of Article II and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." Trump asked the court to decertify the results and direct the state legislature to appoint a slate of presidential electors.

  On January 5, 2021, Judge Mark Howard Cohen dismissed the lawsuit. Cohen wrote the following in his order: "The Court finds that the threatened injury to Defendants as state officials and the public at large far outweigh any burden on the Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks an extraordinary and unprecedented remedy: the decertification of the votes cast in the presidential election, after millions of people lawfully cast their ballots. To interfere with the result of an election that has already concluded and has been audited and certified on multiple occasions would be unprecedented and harm the public in countless ways."

Michigan

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Michigan)
• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (lower court: Michigan Court of Claims)
• Issue: Whether an election challenger was illegally prevented from participating in the absentee/mail-in ballot review process.
• Current status/outcome: The lower court declined to intervene, denying the plaintiffs' motion for relief. The appeals court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as moot.
• Order/decision date: December 4, 2020 (lower court: November 5, 2020)
• Order/opinion link: Order (lower court: opinion and order)

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 4, 2020, the Trump campaign and Eric Ostergren, an election challenger from Roscommon County, filed suit in the Michigan Court of Claims, alleging that Ostergren was excluded from viewing the absentee/mail-in ballot review process. In Michigan, election challengers differ from poll watchers. Political parties and certain interested groups appoint election challengers. Election challengers can question a ballot’s validity during counting. State law establishes that at least one election challenger from each major party must be present during absentee/mail-in ballot counting. The plaintiffs argued, “Benson’s actions and her failure to act have undermined the constitutional right of all Michigan voters … to participate in fair and lawful elections.”

  On November 5, 2020, Judge Cynthia Stephens dismissed the lawsuit from the bench. She issued a written opinion and order on November 6, 2020.

  On November 6, 2020, the campaign appealed Stephens' decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals; the campaign completed its filing on November 30, 2020. On December 4, 2020, a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting that certification of the statewide results had already taken place. Judges Stephen Borrello and Amy Krause formed the majority. Judge Patrick Meter dissented.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Michigan)
• Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
• Issue: Whether Republican poll watchers were illegally prevented from observing the ballot counting process; whether illegal ballots were counted over the objections of Republican challengers.
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 10, 2020, the Trump campaign sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) and Wayne County election officials in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The campaign alleged that Republican poll watchers were denied the opportunity to observe the processing and counting of absentee/mail-in ballots. The campaign also alleged that some election workers altered ballot receipt dates and counted otherwise ineligible ballots over the objections of Republican challengers. Attorneys for the campaign argued that these alleged breaches of state election law violated the Equal Protection and Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They asked the court to order Benson and the state board of canvassers not to certify election results "until they have verified and confirmed that all ballots that were tabulated and included in the final reported election results were cast in compliance with the provisions of the Michigan Election Code."

Nevada

Kraus v. Cegavske

• Case name: Kraus v. Cegavske (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Gloria in the lower court)
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Nevada)
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court (lower court: Clark County District Court)
• Issue: Whether Clark County election officials could use artificial intelligence to verify mail-in ballot signatures and make copies of ballots whose originals could not be machine-processed.
• Current status/outcome: The Nevada Supreme Court declined to block a lower court's order on this question, allowing officials to continue using the aforementioned processing procedures. The Trump campaign subsequently withdrew its appeal.
• Order/decision date: November 3, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 3, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court declined to block a lower court's order allowing the Clark County registrar to use artificial intelligence to verify mail-in ballot signatures and make copies of ballots whose originals could not be machine-processed. The Trump campaign and the Republican Party of Nevada had asked the state supreme court to halt these processing procedures. The supreme court unanimously rejected Republicans' request, saying they had not demonstrated "a sufficient likelihood of success to merit a stay or injunction." The court agreed to hear the case at a later date. However, the campaign withdrew its appeal on November 10, 2020.

New Mexico

Trump v. Oliver

• Case name: Trump v. Oliver
• Related election/s: Presidential election (New Mexico)
• Court: United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
• Issue: Whether the New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver violated the Constitution by taking non-legislative action to authorize secure ballot drop-off locations.
• Current status/outcome: The Trump campaign voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.
• Order/decision date: January 11, 2021
• Order/opinion link: Motion to voluntarily dismiss

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 14, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico seeking a preliminary injunction or stay of the certification of the state's electoral votes. In the complaint, the plaintiff wrote, "Did the Defendant Maggie Toulouse Oliver, as Secretary of State of New Mexico, violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the state of New Mexico’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the state of New Mexico has not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in New Mexico that remain loyal to the Constitution."

  On January 11, 2021, the Trump campaign voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Pennsylvania

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States (lower court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
• Issue: Whether three Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions regarding state election law usurped the state legislature's plenary authority for appointing electors and violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 19, 2020, attorneys for the Trump campaign filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, alleging that three state supreme court decisions had usurped the state legislature's plenary authority to determine the manner in which presidential electors are chosen. On January 11, 2021, the court denied Trump's motion for expedited consideration, although it did not at that time deny the petition altogether.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (lower court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania)
• Issue: Whether some absentee and mail-in ballots were accepted and counted in violation of state law, and whether those ballots should be stricken from the count.
• Current status/outcome: District Court Judge Matthew Brann dismissed the lawsuit. The Trump campaign appealed that dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.
• Order/decision date: November 27, 2020 (lower court: November 21, 2020)
• Order/opinion link: Link (lower court: Memorandum opinion)

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 9, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a federal lawsuit against Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (D) and several county-level officials, alleging multiple violations of the state election code and the U.S. Constitution. In their complaint, attorneys for the campaign said the following:

  “

  Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting Defendants from certifying the results of the General Election. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting Defendants from certifying any results from the General Election that included the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots which do not comply with the Election Code, including, without limitation, the tabulation of absentee and mail-in ballots Trump Campaign’s watchers were prevented from observing or based on the tabulation of invalidly cast absentee and mail-in ballots which (i) lack a secrecy envelope, or contain on that envelope any text, mark, or symbol which reveals the elector’s identity, political affiliation, or candidate preference, (ii) do not include on the outside envelope a completed declaration that is dated and signed by the elector, or (iii) are delivered in-person by third parties for non-disabled voters. Lastly and in addition to the alternative requests for relief, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the County Election Boards to invalidate ballots cast by voters who were notified and given an opportunity to cure their invalidly cast mail-in ballot.

  ”

  On November 12, 2020, law firm Porter Wright withdrew from the suit. On November 15, 2020, attorneys for the Trump campaign filed an amended complaint, dropping the allegation that election officials violated the campaign's constitutional rights by preventing campaign observers from monitoring the counting process.

  On November 16, 2020, attorneys John Scott, and Douglas Bryan Hughes withdrew from the suit. Marc A. Scaringi signed on to act as counsel for the campaign. On November 17, 2020, Rudy Giuliani, a former U.S. Attorney and New York City mayor, petitioned the court to allow him to intervene as the campaign's lead counsel. Judge Matthew Brann heard oral arguments on November 17, 2020.

  On November 18, 2020, the Trump campaign amended its complaint further, alleging that "a substantial portion of the approximately 1.5 million absentee and mail votes in [Allegheny, Centre, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Northampton, and Philadelphia] counties should not have been counted, and the vast majority favored Biden, thus resulting in returns indicating Biden won Pennsylvania." The campaign asked that the court either order election officials to omit the challenged ballots from the official tally or grant the state legislature the authority to choose a slate of presidential electors. On November 19, 2020, attorney Linda Kerns withdrew from the case.

  On November 21, 2020, Brann dismissed the lawsuit. In his opinion, Brann wrote the following:

  “

  In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Green County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. ... One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

  ”

  On November 22, 2020, the Trump campaign appealed Brann's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking that the appeals court order Brann to consider the campaign's second amended complaint and issue a ruling on the merits (in his dismissal order, Brann declined to grant the campaign leave to file a second amended complaint).

  The Third Circuit set an expedited schedule for considering the appeal, directing the parties to submit briefs by 4 p.m. on November 23, 2020. In its brief, the Trump campaign alleged that state and local election officials "mis-administered the 2020 presidential election in such a disastrous manner that they violated the Equal Protection Clause and structure guarantees of our Constitution." The campaign asked that the Third Circuit postpone the certification of election results, pending appeal.

  On November 27, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit unanimously denied the Trump campaign's request. Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the court, said, "The campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal." Judges Brooks Smith and Michael Chagares joined Bibas' opinion. Attorneys for the Trump campaign indicated that they intended to appeal the Third Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Issue: Whether the secretary of the commonwealth illegally extended the deadline for mail-in voters to provide missing proof of identification after submitting their ballots.
• Current status/outcome: Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt ruled that the secretary of the commonwealth had illegally extended the deadline for mail-in voters to provide missing proof of identification after submitting their ballots. Leavitt barred election officials from counting ballots for which proof of identification was provided after the statutory deadline of November 9, 2020.
• Order/decision date: November 12, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 4, 2020, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee sued Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (D) and the state's 67 county election boards. The plaintiffs alleged that processes allowing mail-in voters to provide missing proof of identification after submitting their ballots violated state law. On November 1, 2020, Boockvar directed county election officials to give mail-in voters until November 12, 2020, to provide missing proof of identification. State law specifies that missing proof of identification must be submitted by the sixth day following the election, which would be November 9, 2020. The plaintiffs asked the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to reinstate this statutory deadline.

  On November 5, 2020, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt ordered election officials to "segregate ballots for which identification is received and verified on November 10, 11, and 12, 2020, from ballots for which identification is received and verified on or before November 9, 2020." On November 12, 2020, Leavitt ruled that Boockvar lacked statutory authority to extend the deadline and barred election officials from counting ballots for which identification was received and verified after November 9, 2020.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections

• Case name: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Issue: Whether the Philadelphia County Board of Elections violated state law and the U.S. Constitution by declining to allow poll watchers for the Trump campaign and the Republican Party to observe the mail-in ballot counting process .
• Current status/outcome: The parties to the lawsuit agreed to allow 60 observers each from the Democratic and Republican parties. The court dismissed the lawsuit as moot in light of this agreement.
• Order/decision date: November 5, 2020
• Order/opinion link: N/A

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 5, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit against the Philadelphia County Board of Elections in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The campaign alleged that board of elections was "intentionally refusing to allow any representatives and poll watchers for President Trump and the Republican Party" to observe the mail-in ballot counting process. The parties to the suit agreed to allow 60 observers each from the Democratic and Republican parties. In light of this agreement, Judge Paul Diamond dismissed the lawsuit.

In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election

• Case name: In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
• Issue: Whether Bucks County election officials illegally counted 2,251 absentee and mail-in ballots for various alleged deficiencies .
• Current status/outcome: Judge Robert Baldi dismissed the suit, writing in his opinion, "There is nothing in the record and nothing alleged that would lead to the conclusion that any of the challenged ballots were submitted by someone not qualified or entitled to vote in this election."
• Order/decision date: November 19, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 9, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that county election officials had illegally accepted and counted 2,175 absentee and mail-in ballots with printed name and/or address deficiencies. The campaign also challenged the validity of 76 ballots that were either delivered in unsealed privacy envelopes or with stray markings. On November 7, 2020, the campaign lodged its objections to these ballots with the Bucks County Board of Elections, which rejected the campaign's claims. The campaign asked the court to reverse the election board's decision.

  On November 19, 2020, Judge Robert Baldi dismissed the suit, writing in his opinion, "There is nothing in the record and nothing alleged that would lead to the conclusion that any of the challenged ballots were submitted by someone not qualified or entitled to vote in this election."

In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election

• Case name: In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
• Issue: Whether Montgomery County election officials illegally counted approximately 600 absentee and mail-in ballots for which the outer envelope declaration had not been filled out.
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 5, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit against the Montgomery County Board of Elections in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that election officials had violated state law by counting approximately 600 absentee and mail-in ballots for which voters had not completed the outer declaration envelope. The campaign first filed its objections to the Montgomery County Board of Elections, which dismissed the challenge. In their complaint, attorneys for the Trump campaign said, "The Montgomery County Board of Elections is not empower to re-write the [Pennsylvania] Election Code or adopt rules, regulations, instructions, or decisions that are inconsistent with the Election Code."

In re: canvassing observation; Appeal of: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

• Case name: In re: canvassing observation; Appeal of: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court (on appeal from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; lower court: Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas)
• Issue: Whether candidates and their representatives can observe aspects of the canvassing process from within 6 feet of election workers.
• Current status/outcome: The state supreme court reversed a lower court's order that had directed election officials to allow candidates and their representatives to observe all aspects of the counting process from within 6 feet of election workers. As a result, the local election board's rule requiring observations to take place with at least 6 feet separating the observer from the election worker was allowed to stand.
• Order/decision date: November 17, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Opinion (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 5, 2020, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon ordered the Philadelphia Board of Elections to allow "all candidates, watchers, or candidate representatives ... [to be] permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all Covid-19 protocols, including wearing masks and maintaining social distancing." Cannon overturned a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas ruling, which had upheld a rule requiring observations to take place with at least 6 feet separating the observer from the election worker. The Trump campaign filed the initial challenge to this policy on November 3, 2020.

  In light of Cannon's ruling, Democrats appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On November 17, 2020, the state supreme court voted 5-2 to reverse Cannon's ruling. Justice Debra Todd, joined by Justices Max Baer, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, and David N. Wecht, wrote the following in the court's opinion:

  “

  In sum, we conclude the Board did not act contrary to law in fashioning its regulations governing the positioning of candidate representatives during the precanvassing and canvassing process, as the Election Code does not specify minimum distance parameters for the location of such representatives. Critically, we find the Board’s regulations as applied herein were reasonable in that they allowed candidate representatives to observe the Board conducting its activities as prescribed under the Election Code. Accordingly, we determine the Commonwealth Court’s order was erroneous.

  ”

  Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justice Sallie Mundy dissented.

In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election; Appeal of: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

• Case name: In re: canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election; Appeal of: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court (on appeal from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas)
• Issue: Whether 8,329 absentee and mail-in ballots that were missing handwritten names, street addresses, or dates on their accompanying return envelopes should be counted as valid.
• Current status/outcome: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the validity of the challenged ballots.
• Order/decision date: November 23, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Link

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 23, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Philadelphia County election board's decision to count 8,329 absentee and mail-in ballots that were missing handwritten names, street addresses, or dates on their accompanying return envelopes.

  The Trump campaign alleged that these ballots were defective and, therefore, invalid under state law. The election board rejected this argument, and the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas upheld that determination. The Trump campaign appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, but the state supreme court took up the matter first, at the request of the Philadelphia County election board.

  Justice Christine Donohue (D) wrote the court's opinion, which Justices Max Baer (D) and Debra Todd (D) joined. Donohue said, "We conclude that the [Pennsylvania] Election Code does not require boards of elections to disqualify mail-in or absentee ballots submitted by qualified electors who signed the declaration on their ballot's outer envelope but did not handwrite their name, their address, and/or date, where no fraud or irregularity has been alleged."

  Justice David N. Wecht (D) concurred in the result of the court's decision, filing a separate opinion. Justice Kevin M. Dougherty (D) filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part, which Chief Justice Thomas Saylor (R) and Justice Sallie Mundy (R) joined. In his opinion, Dougherty concurred with the court's judgment on ballots missing handwritten names and street addresses. However, he dissented on the matter of ballots missing handwritten dates: "[The] meaning of the terms 'date' and 'sign' – which were included by the legislature – are self-evident, they are not subject to interpretation, and the statutory language expressly requires that the elector provide them. … Accordingly, I do not view the absence of a date as a mere technical insufficiency we may overlook."

In re: pre-canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election

• Case name: In re: pre-canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots of November 3, 2020, general election
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
• Issue: Whether the Bucks County Board of Elections violated state law by allowing the disclosure of voter identification information for mail-in ballots voided during the pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of polls .
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 3, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the Bucks County Board of Elections had violated state law by disclosing voter identification information for ballots identified as void during the pre-canvass meeting. The campaign asked the court to order the board of elections to reverse this policy and "for such other and further relief as provided by the Pennsylvania Election Code and/or as this Court deems just and appropriate."

Kelly v. Pennsylvania

• Case name: Kelly v. Pennsylvania
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States (lower court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; appeals court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
• Issue: Whether the Pennsylvania law allowing for no-excuse mail-in voting violates the state constitution, and, if so, whether the court should nullify votes cast by mail or direct the state legislature to select a slate of presidential electors.
• Current status/outcome: Judge Patricia McCullough ordered election officials to temporarily halt "any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 general election ... for the offices of President and Vice President," pending an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 27, 2020. The state appealed this order to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reversed McCullough's decision and dismissed the case with prejudice, allowing certification of election results to proceed. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case.
• Order/decision date: December 8, 2020 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: November 28, 2020; Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: November 25, 2020)
• Order/opinion link: Order (Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Order; Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court: Order)

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 21, 2020, a group of state Republican officials, candidates, and voters filed suit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, alleging that the state law allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail violated the state constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court either to order election officials "to certify the results of the election based solely on the legal votes" or to direct "that the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose Pennsylvania's [presidential] electors."

  On November 25, 2020, Judge Patricia McCullough ordered election officials to temporarily halt "any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 general election ... for the offices of President and Vice President," pending an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 27, 2020.

  State officials appealed McCullough's order to the state supreme court. On November 28, 2020, the state supreme court ruled unanimously to vacate McCullough's order and dismiss the case with prejudice. In its unsigned opinion, the court wrote the following:

  “

  The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election and the final ballots in the 2020 general election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.

  ”

  Sean Parnell, a Republican congressional candidate who was a party to the lawsuit, said he and the other plaintiffs would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 1, 2020, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block the state supreme court's order pending appeal. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew this application, and on December 2, 2020, they petitioned the state supreme court to stay its decision pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it would take up the case. The state supreme court declined to stay its decision on December 3, 2020.

  In light of the state supreme court's December 3, 2020, order, the plaintiffs again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state supreme court's ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the justice assigned to consider emergency applications from the Third Circuit (which contains Pennsylvania), directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' filing by 9 a.m. on December 8, 2020. Alito referred the matter to the full court, which, on December 8, 2020, declined to take up the case. The court made its decision without noted dissent.

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

• Case name: Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Pennsylvania)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Issue: Whether a state supreme court order extending the mail-in ballot receipt deadline to November 6, 2020, overriding the statutory receipt deadline of November 3, 2020, was legal.
• Current status/outcome: Associate Justice Samuel Alito ordered county election officials to segregate and separately count mail-in ballots received between 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 5 p.m. on November 6, 2020. The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately declined to consider the case on the merits.

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On November 4, 2020, the Donald Trump campaign asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a pending lawsuit over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order extending the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots to November 6, 2020.

  Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the campaign, said, " The time has come. Given last night’s results, the vote in Pennsylvania may well determine the next President of the United States. And this Court, not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, should have the final say on the relevant and dispositive legal questions."

  On November 6, 2020, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for an order that would require Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar (D) and county election officials to segregate all mail-in ballots received between 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 5 p.m. on November 6, 2020. Boockvar issued guidance to this effect on October 28, 2020. However, Republicans argue that "an order from the Court is badly needed" due to "some county boards' refusal to confirm that they are segregating ballots and the secretary's changing guidance." Associate Justice Samuel Alito granted the petition, ordering county election officials as follows:

  • "[All] ballots received by mail after 8 p.m. on November 3 [must] be segregated and kept 'in a secure, safe and sealed container separate from other voted ballots[.]'"
  • "[All] such ballots, if counted, [must] be counted separately[.]"

  According to Alito's order, "until today, this court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified." Alito said he had referred the petition to the full court for further consideration. On February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to consider the case on the merits, thus concluding the matter.

  Background: On September 17, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order extending the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots to November 6, 2020, overriding the statutory receipt deadline of November 3, 2020. This prompted a series of legal challenges. On October 28, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to expedite consideration of a challenge to the state supreme court's order. The court ruled unanimously on the matter. However, Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch issued a statement criticizing the state supreme court's action: "It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election. That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution." Alito added, "But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election." Although the court declined to intervene ahead of the election, it did not rule on the merits, leaving the possibility open for future action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case.

Texas

Texas v. Pennsylvania

• Case name: Texas v. Pennsylvania
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Texas)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Issue: Whether the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin were subject to "significant and unconstitutional irregularities," and, if so, whether the results in these states should be nullified.
• Current status/outcome: Pending
• Order/decision date: Pending
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 7, 2020, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for permission to sue the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that the presidential elections in these states "suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities … [that] violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections." Paxton asked that the court "enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors."

Wisconsin

Trump v. Biden

• Case name: Trump v. Biden
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Wisconsin)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States (lower courts: Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court)
• Issue: Whether certain absentee/mail-in ballots were accepted illegally and, if so, whether those ballots should be set aside and omitted from the final count.
• Current status/outcome: Judge Stephen Simanek dismissed the lawsuit from the bench, saying, "There is no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud." The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up the appeal, allowing the lower court's decision to stand.

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 7, 2020, Donald Trump (R), Mike Pence (R), and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. filed suit against Joe Biden (D), Kamala Harris (D), and local and state election officials in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs alleged that election officials had violated several state laws governing the processing and counting of absentee/mail-in ballots. The plaintiffs' attorneys said, "The failure of the Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers to enforce Wisconsin's stringent absentee voting and recount procedures by excluding illegal votes has, in effect, harmed a corresponding number of Wisconsin voters who legally voted in the Election. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to a drawdown of equal to the number of absentee ballots and absentee ballot envelopes or certifications, that were improperly counted or included in the Recount[.]"

  On December 11, 2020, Judge Stephen Simanek dismissed the lawsuit. He issued his decision from the bench, saying, "There is no credible evidence of misconduct or wide-scale fraud."

  The plaintiffs appealed the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On December 14, 2020, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Justice Brian Hagedorn delivered the opinion of the court. On December 29, 2020, the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari. On January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States declined Trump's motion for expedited consideration of the case, although the court did not at that time deny the petition altogether. On February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition, thus concluding the matter.

Trump v. Evers

• Case name: Trump v. Evers
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Wisconsin)
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Issue: Whether more than 200,000 absentee/mail-in ballots are defective and should, therefore, be excluded from the final results.
• Current status/outcome: The state supreme court voted 4-3 against taking up a the lawsuit. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, instead finding that the Trump campaign could not bypass the lower state courts and file its suit directly with the state supreme court.
• Order/decision date: December 3, 2020
• Order/opinion link: Pending

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 1, 2020, the Trump campaign filed suit in the state supreme court against Governor Tony Evers (D) and state and local election authorities, alleging that more than 200,000 defective absentee/mail-in ballots were illegally counted, including ballots:

  • Issued in Milwaukee and Dane counties without the required written application
  • Submitted with incomplete information, which was subsequently added by election clerks
  • Submitted by voters claiming indefinite confinement without providing voter identification
  • Received or otherwise acted on by poll workers at Madison's "Democracy in the Park" event

  The campaign asked that the court rescind Evers' certification and order election officials to exclude the challenged ballots from a subsequent certification.

  On December 3, 2020, the state supreme court voted 4-3 against taking up a the lawsuit. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, and Jill Karofsky formed the majority. Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, instead finding that the Trump campaign could not bypass the lower state courts and file its suit directly with the state supreme court.

Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

• Case name: Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
• Related election/s: Presidential election (Wisconsin)
• Court: Supreme Court of the United States (appellate court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; district court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin)
• Issue: Whether state and local officials violated state laws in the course of administering the 2020 election, thereby usurping the authority of the state legislature.
• Current status/outcome: Judge Brett H. Ludwig dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. Trump appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the Untied States, which declined to take up the case.
• Order/decision date: December 24, 2020 (Supreme Court of the Untied States)
• Order/opinion link: Order denying certiorari (Supreme Court of the Untied States)

• Click here to read a written summary of this case (click to expand)
  Summary: On December 2, 2020, Trump filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Governor Tony Evers (D), Secretary of State Douglas La Follette (D), the state election commission, and several local officials, alleging that the defendants had violated a number of state laws in the course of administering the 2020 election. Trump's attorneys argued that these "practices usurped the Wisconsin Legislature's exclusive authority to direct the election for presidential electors in Wisconsin and also violated equal protection and due process standards, significantly undercutting the predictable and uniform application of the law."

  Trump's attorneys asked that the court declare "that the constitutional violations of the defendants likely tainted more than 50,000 ballots" and authorize "the Wisconsin Legislature to consider the defendants' violations of the Electors, Equal Protection, and Due Process Clauses and determine what remedy, if any, the Wisconsin Legislature should impose."

  On December 12. 2020, Judge Brett H. Ludwig dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. He wrote, "This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Trump's attorneys filed an appeal.

  On December 24, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Ludwig's decision. Judge Michael Scudder wrote, "We confine our conclusions to applications of the Electors Clause. We are not the ultimate authority on Wisconsin law. That responsibility rests with the State’s Supreme Court. Put another way, the errors that the President alleges occurred in the Commission’s exercise of its authority are in the main matters of state law. They belong, then, in the state courts, where the President had an opportunity to raise his concerns. ... For our part, all we need to say is that, even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature."

  On December 30, 2020, Trump appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 11, 2021, the court denied Trump's motion for expedited consideration, and on March 8, 2021, dismissed the appeal altogether.

Recounts

Information about recounts involving the 2020 presidential election will be added here as it becomes available.

Georgia

See also: Recount laws in Georgia

On November 6, 2020, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) said that a statewide recount was likely due to the narrow margin of votes separating President Donald Trump (R) from former Vice President Joe Biden (D). Raffensperger said, "This process is and will remain open and transparent to monitors."

The Trump campaign appointed Rep. Doug Collins (R) to lead the campaign's recount efforts. On November 10, 2020, Collins filed the following formal requests with Raffensperger:

• "There must be a full comparison of absentee ballots cast and in-person and provisional ballots cast throughout the state."
• "[T]here must be a check for felons and other ineligible persons who m ay have cast a ballot.
• "[The] Secretary of state should announce a full hand-count of every ballot cast in each and every county due to widespread allegations of voter irregularities, issues with voting machines, and poll watcher access."

On November 11, 2020, Raffensperger announced that Georgia would conduct a hand-count audit of its presidential election results. The target date for completing the audit was November 20, 2020, the state's certification deadline.

On November 19, 2020, Raffensperger announced the results of the hand-count audit, which confirmed Biden's victory over Trump. The audit revealed a 0.1053 percent discrepancy in the statewide vote total, and a 0.0099 percent variation in the margin of victory, between the hand count and the initial machine count. The audit uncovered approximately 5,000 ballots that were not tallied during the initial machine count, which election officials attributed to human error. This resulted in a net gain of 1,272 votes for Trump.

On November 21, the Trump campaign requested a recount. That recount was conducted by rescanning ballots through tabulation machines, in contrast with the hand-count audit that concluded on November 19, 2020. The machine recount ended on December 4, 2020. The outcome of the race was unchanged, and Raffensperger recertified the results on December 7, 2020.

Wisconsin

See also: Recount laws in Wisconsin

On November 18, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) and Vice President Mike Pence (R) petitioned the Wisconsin Elections Commission for recounts in Dane and Milwaukee counties. In their petition, Trump and Pence alleged that "mistakes and fraud were committed throughout the state of Wisconsin, including particularly in the city of Madison, the city of Milwaukee, and throughout Dane County and Milwaukee County."

The Trump campaign wired the state elections commission $3 million to pay for the costs of the recounts. Late in the evening on November 18, 2020, after deadlocking on a number of procedural points, the commission's three Democrats and three Republicans voted unanimously to approve the recount, which got underway on November 19, 2020.

On November 27, 2020, Milwaukee County announced the results of its recount. On November 29, 2020, Dane County followed suit. The recounts in these two counties resulted in a net gain of 87 votes for Biden.

All post-election lawsuits

See also: Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Post-election lawsuits, 2020

The following is a list of post-election lawsuits, including both suits involving the presidential election and those dealing with other contests. Where available, case names and numbers, states of origin, courts of origin, and links to complaints and docket reports are provided.

See also

• Ballotpedia's 2020 Election Help Desk: Post-election lawsuits, 2020
• Election recount laws and procedures in the 50 states, 2020
• Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021
• Changes to election dates, procedures, and administration in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020