Before the eve of the 2024 US election, many important legal cases and decisions have arisen regarding how voters cast their ballots and how the government handles the election results.
Some cases are still ongoing, and if the situation in 2024 mirrors that of 2020, the US could face a wave of lawsuits after election day, with candidates questioning the results.
However, it remains uncertain how far these legal cases will go, with experts questioning whether a series of ongoing lawsuits could lead to a case decided by the Supreme Court.
Mike O’Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Landmark Legal Foundation, said in an interview with The Epoch Times, “Judges across the country… don’t want to be seen as depriving citizens of their rights.”
“If they have a reason to dismiss a case, they will use that reason, even if there may be evidence suggesting a lack of adherence to proper procedures or necessary registration processes.”
November brings some legal issues to watch out for.
One of the most controversial issues in the 2020 election was the widespread use of mail-in ballots, implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
An investigation by the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal agency established by Congress, showed a 20% increase in mail-in ballots from 2016 to 2020.
J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), told The Epoch Times, “Because we are no longer in a pandemic, we won’t see the same level of lawsuit-driven outcomes in the elections. I think that’s the biggest difference between this election and the 2020 election.”
Pennsylvania was one of the most fiercely contested states in the 2020 election, with a recent lawsuit involving how to handle mail-in ballots lacking correct dates and other information. A practice known as “ballot curing” allows voters to correct errors on their ballots after submission.
Chad Ennis, Vice President of the Honest Elections Project, noted, “Once the ballots are in, it takes time to process them, to make sure all the information submitted by the voter is accurate, so that process is slower.”
Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that state election officials can notify voters of errors in their mail-in ballots and allow them to make corrections, rejecting Republican challenges to this practice.
In Nevada and Mississippi, mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day also face similar challenges.
The issue has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in September from the Republican National Committee (RNC) claiming that Mississippi’s ballots received after Election Day should not be counted — even if they have compliant postmarks.
Texas passed a comprehensive election security law in 2021, but some provisions were recently halted by a district court judge.
Specifically, Judge Xavier Rodriguez enjoined Texas from prohibiting “compensation” for helping voters fill out mail-in ballots and from restricting compensation for “vote harvesting” services, defining the latter as “interacting with one or more voters face-to-face at a polling place or in the mail voting process to obtain votes for a particular candidate or issue.”
According to Rodriguez, both provisions violate the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
In Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, Republicans have also filed lawsuits questioning ballots submitted by overseas individuals.
One law known as the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act requires states to allow US citizens residing abroad to submit ballots, but Republicans argue that election officials in North Carolina and Pennsylvania unlawfully waived verification requirements for overseas Americans.
They also allege that Michigan election officials have registered individuals who do not reside in the state.
Judge Robert McBurney of Fulton County heard a challenge in Georgia to the certification policies by the state’s election commissions on October 1. One of the election rule changes passed by the commission requires officials to conduct a “reasonable review” before confirming results and allows for the review of “generated during the election process” documents.
McBurney appeared to lean toward maintaining these rules but clarified the “reasonable review” rule as vague.
On October 15, he ruled that election supervisors must not (before the deadline specified by law) refuse to certify or not certify election results (even if they suspect errors or fraud) under Georgia’s new rules. He added that a delay in receiving election-related information is not a reason to refuse certification or forgo it.
In another ruling on October 15, McBurney suspended the implementation of a provision in the Georgia Election Commission’s new rules that required manual counting of votes, citing the rule’s introduction too close to the election.
The next day, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox issued a ruling declaring the manual vote rule and six other new rules by the Georgia Election Commission invalid, including the provision requiring officials to conduct a “reasonable review.” The Republican National Committee promptly appealed this decision.
The Department of Justice has sued Alabama and Virginia, alleging they have sought to cleanse their voter rolls ahead of the election.
On October 16, a federal judge in Alabama issued a preliminary injunction against the state’s process.
Both lawsuits cite the Quiet Period Provision of the National Voter Registration Act, which states, “States must complete any program that systematically removes ineligible voters from official voter lists no later than 90 days before the federal primary or general election.”
Arizona has seen several disputes over voter rolls, with officials discovering nearly 100,000 individuals were able to vote without providing proof of citizenship.
Last year, the Supreme Court intervened to block a lower court’s decision which prevented state law from requiring election officials to reject voter registration forms lacking proof of citizenship.
Recently, a federal judge rejected legal efforts by an organization in Arizona trying to force county officials to investigate over 40,000 registered voters’ citizenship status before the upcoming election.
The RNC has also raised allegations of non-citizen voting in Maine and Nevada. In Nevada, the RNC and the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State.
The Fifth Circuit Court and a hearing in Georgia have also raised questions about the Purcell principle, derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Purcell v. Gonzalez in 2006, preventing courts from changing election rules in the months leading up to the election to avoid confusion among voters.
Generally, changes to election policies should be avoided before voting begins.
The court opinion did not list a specific timeline for allowing modifications to election procedures. Instead, the court overturned the appeals court’s decision on Arizona’s voter identification law.
The opinion reflects concerns about abruptly changing laws in the weeks leading up to the election.
O’Neill told The Epoch Times, “I think there’s a certain number of courts that if they want to avoid the perception that they may be depriving voters of the right to vote, will cite the Purcell principle.”
Another group subject to political scrutiny over voting eligibility are convicted felons.
For instance, legislation was passed last year to ensure convicted felons can vote in federal elections.
Currently, states have varying laws on whether convicted felons can vote.
On October 16, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that convicted felons of serious crimes can register to vote, rejecting a directive from the Republican Secretary of State. The Secretary instructed that a state law allowing these individuals to register need not be followed.
The Minnesota Supreme Court similarly rejected a challenge to the state law in August, allowing convicted felons to vote immediately after release from prison.
Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court dismissed a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court on disqualifying former President Donald Trump from running for office.
The state Supreme Court invoked the 14th Amendment, Section 3, of the Constitution, which broadly bars individuals engaging in insurrection from holding public office.
In Trump v. Anderson, a majority of Supreme Court justices explained that state governments cannot make such determinations, leaving open the possibility for Congress to exercise authority granted by the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump.
Jamie Raskin, Chief Democratic Member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, responded to the Supreme Court’s decision in March by formulating legislation to disqualify Trump.
Aside from the Trump v. Anderson case, the last time the US Supreme Court faced such crucial presidential election rulings was in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
However, with over a hundred legal challenges posed by Republicans, some of which may reach the Supreme Court, the Republican National Committee (RNC) informed The Epoch Times that they initiated over 130 lawsuits in 26 states.
Following the 2020 election, the Supreme Court received multiple petitions to review election procedures in various states.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected these, including Texas’s challenge to the results of four battleground states.
The Supreme Court also rejected an appeal regarding Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court extending the deadline for mail-in voting.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from refusing to hear this case, warning of the consequences of inaction, stating, “our failure to resolve this dispute before the election will foreclose this Court from providing clear guidance.”
He added, “Our citizens deserve better and expect more from us.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in September, “the court expects to see election-related litigation.”
In an interview with CBS News, Jackson stated, “There are legal questions that arise in the political process. So the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond when necessary.”
O’Neill speculated, “The Supreme Court has left room on its docket for cases that they might have to quickly/emergently re-review.”
He added, “If there were a situation similar to the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, they would have to quickly resolve issues of equal protection or due process, and I know the Court is prepared for that.”
Experts have told The Epoch Times that the US Supreme Court may try to avoid handling cases related to the current election.
Adams told The Epoch Times, “I think the Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to get involved in election lawsuits that could influence the outcome.”
Former FEC member Hans von Spakovsky told The Epoch Times, “The likelihood the Supreme Court will accept a case like this is very slim.”
He said, “It’s highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will take such cases unless, after the election, there’s a major constitutional conflict arising from the election results. I think the chance of that happening is very small.”