Jump to content

Talk:Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Adding a timeline

Having a timeline would be nice, for historical purposes. Please comment here if you think this is a good/bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72B0:F600:4C2B:74DD:1FEF:19A3 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Explanation Given

"Mean while in Georgia over 5000 ‘lost’ Trump votes where found during the recount. No explanation was given." -- The explanation is known. 2 counties reported problems. Floyd county found 2600 votes in a box that weren't counted. Fayette county found 2755 votes on a memory card that were never uploaded. https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-recount-uncovers-2600-new-votes-in-presidential-race/I75NSPYYGNF43HQZBPYKJWJ5MA/ https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/2755-uncounted-votes-found-on-memory-card-in-fayette-county-officials-say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.110.91 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Ruled"

It's really hard to parse the "Ruled" lawsuits at a glance to determine if it was in favor of either party. Might I suggest an 'in favor of' column for the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree - I agree with this. Technically they should be labelled "Disposed" as in there is a disposition (judge ruling) in favor of one party or the other, or sometimes both, however as I noted above (see Accuracy) Ruled is likely easier to read for most. That said, an additional column for who the ruling favored would do wonders for this table. OnePercent (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Craziest"

Here's a report on Krebs' reaction to Guilani's election fraud allegation. Worth an add? https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/526764-ousted-cyber-official-giuliani-press-conference-most-dangerous-1hr-45min Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree - The article presented is exclusively opinions from an individual who was terminated. In my opinion, since this page is referring to legal cases and the law, it's important to stick with facts only and we already have some issues to clean up in that regard, so we shouldn't add more. Notably, Giuliani's press conference is equally as irrelevant. What happens in the court under oath as part of public record is what is relevant. OnePercent (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A general well-done

Just read through this article and I wanted to say "well-done" to all concerned. It has been kept factual and NPOV, an admittedly difficult task in the current climate. Manning (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Should typos in the filing documents be brought up in this article?

I'm of the opinion that the typos in the filling documents should be omitted from this article. Typos in the fillings really doesn't affect the validity of the accusations (or the lack thereof). Perhaps the numerous typos could reflect sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the part of Trump's legal team, but I can't see how they could significantly impact the outcome of these lawsuits. It just seems like a petty "Grammar Nazi" type nitpick to me, and reeks of the editor throwing around their personal opinions. Unless it could proven that the typos have a discernible influence on the lawsuits, I would leave them out of this page. If don't agree with me on this, feel free to add your differing views here. Randomuser335S (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2020

In terms of notability, I'm not opposed to including a quick mention or short sentence about the typos, because the lawsuits brought by Sidney Powell (King v. Whitmer, Pearson v. Kemp) are described by some generally reliable sources as "typo-filled" (The Hill), "typo-strewn" (Bloomberg), or otherwise (Law & Crime). Other more questionable sources might be going a bit ham. Wdougs (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I lean no, but if it is mentioned, then not in the lede. It feels like a petty and insubstantial way to attack the suits, which have far more deficiencies than their typos. Fixating on typos undermines and elides that point. I believe that "typo-filled" is being used to communicate to lay readers the lack of care the Trump campaign's legal team has taken, in lieu of complicated explanations about the elementary legal shortcomings and procedural oversights. Also it's much easier to write articles about typos than about first-year law student procedural errors.-Ich (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Generally though, our standard should be what reliable sources deemed important enough to include in their reporting. If multiple RS explicitly mentioned typos, then we should mention them as well. Not prominently maybe but a sentence about it seems appropriate if we have multiple RS talking about them. We can leave it up to the readers to decide what to do with that information. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Apparently one or two of the filling documents have severely noteworthy typos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M&feature=youtu.be&t=2027 WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

== Organize this article differently? == It is being widely reported that the SCOtUS has agreed to review 5 separate law suites involving charges of election fraud on February 19, 2021. This review will determine their interest in further hearing any or all of these cases. Any fruther hearing by the court would then be held in October 2021.[Search domain americanmilitarynews.com/2021/02/supreme-court-to-decide-if-two-trump-election-fraud-cases-can-proceed-this-month/] I'm not a a lawyer but a media professional, and I would think that any legitimate news or reporting entity, including Wikipedia, would do well to reconsider and possibly revise the words like baseless and without merit with reference to all charges made by Republicans with regard to election fraud - unless they have personally conducted a review of the evidence and made that judgement.. h Lewis 2-7-21

It seems that this article is meant to compile all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election, but also describes and summarizes information about the topic and each case. There are hundreds of these lawsuits, and it is quite the undertaking to document each one. According to a USA Today analysis, “[i]n all, more than 230 election-related federal lawsuits were filed from Jan. 1 to Oct. 23, higher than any of the past three presidential election years during the same time period.” [1] According to Reuters, “[m]ore than 300 lawsuits have been filed in 44 states about the Nov. 3 election.” [2] And this doesn’t even include lawsuits filed post-election. More, there are already sites dedicated to tracking this, as listed in the article, by the Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy Docket, the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, and SCOTUSblog. Do we need to duplicate those efforts? After editing the page for a few days, I wonder if this article is casting the net too wide? Would readers be better served by a different approach to summarizing accepted information on this topic? Wdougs (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Good points, please propose something --Pakbelang (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Pakbelang: My concerns have been somewhat addressed by a few developments with this article: 1) on Nov. 19, a contributor changed this article from a list to a prose article, and 2) more recently, a contributor separated pre-election and post-election lawsuits into two separate articles. Now it should be markedly easier to cover the post-election lawsuits in this article because currently, they only number somewhere in the 30-40 range. However, my concerns still would still apply to the Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election...there are hundreds of those cases. I have ideas for how to tackle that page but at some point will bring those up at that article's talk page (and will tag you for feedback if you don't mind). Wdougs (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wdougs: Great to hear. I look forward to it. Thanks. --Pakbelang (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Boland v. Raffensperger: Wisconsin or Georgia case?

Is this a Wisconsin case? Raffensperger is the Sec of State for Georgia. JuliettPapaGolf (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved @JuliettPapaGolf: Good catch, I made that mistake. I moved the prose and summary table line to Georgia.

Does this court document [3] indicate the case has been dismissed? Ptousig (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the summary

How about adding a one sentence summary at the top of the Summary of post-election lawsuits? Maybe stating ## cases dismissed, ## cases dropped, ## cases ruled for the plaintiff, ## cases ruled for the defendant, ## cases ongoing, etc. GoingBatty (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see the new Counts section! Politico reports "The Trump campaign and its Republican allies have officially lost or withdrawn more 50 post-election lawsuits, and emerged victorious in only one, according to a tally kept by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias...". Is Elias miscounting, or are there some lawsuits missing from the Wikipedia article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are suits listed in the main body are are not represented on the table, 1 each from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and previously Wisconsin. I have added Wisconsin's missing case, back when I thought it was the only one. That alone exhausted my feeble skills, so anyone else that wants to take up the task for the rest should do so.47.226.96.225 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This page should be removed

Referencing actual lawsuits with actual sworn witnesses would be counterproductive to the narrative that it’s all a crazy right-wing conspiracy with zero evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuizo (talk • contribs)

Very funny. Misty MH (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump v Wis Election Comm

This has been appealed. See here. Though I'm not in a position to mess with the fancy table. GMGtalk 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wondering if it would be useful to provide a link for each case in the table, to its associated page on a docket tracker. Since many seem to already have links to Court Listener, I'd probably start with this one and go from there. But since such a large addition of links from one site might irk some editors the wrong way, I thought I'd ask for feedback here before doing it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Information on federal “tbc” case

The initial filing may be read here. It is an appeal regarding In re November 3, 2020 General Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020 General Election. I have corrected the name in the article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC).

Safe Harbor

I've seen multiple sources state that Wisconsin missed safe harbor, such as this one. I've heard Judge Ludwig said so on Dec. 10. That was a seven-hour hearing (with recesses) and there's no PDF for Courtlistener for that hearing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Renard Migrant Thanks for sharing, I added this info to the Wisconsin case Trump v. Evers and referenced some secondary sources that talk about it. Wdougs (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Rick Hasen confirms it here. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Renard Migrant, I also added this piece of information to the lead, which previously stated that every state met the "Safe Harbor" deadline. I corrected this based on a reliable source, to reflect that Wisconsin did not meet the deadline. Wdougs (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

New Mexico Case?

New Mexico case filed today, not of any significance though, not sure if it should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:C200:7E7C:D66:E4DD:8372:5F9C (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolved
 – A contributor has added this case to the article. Wdougs (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible source regarding Trump campaign lawsuits

Legal analysis by an expert, in regards to Rule 11 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/trump-lose-frivolous-election-lawsuits.html It may be of relevance for the coverage here. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

And note: '......when a party alleges fraud, it must plead the facts of the alleged fraud with particularity. (FRCP 9(b)).' "Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters...(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally." [4] Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Some other sources also talk about Rule 11: Reuters, Washington Post, and Politico. Wdougs (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Article split

@Wdougs: I think its about time to split these pages even further to each individual state. I've been doing some extensive additions to the pre-election webpage in regards to Pennsylvania. I definitely have more to add there but now that I'm moving on to the post-election lawsuits for Pennsylvania the page is getting a bit too cumbersome and wieldy to make any meaningful addition while also providing a timeline of events. Furthermore, I think separating these into individual states and allowing the current pages to remain as an overall summary of the collective state litigation and whatever rises up to above state level into the Circuit Courts/Supreme Court will definitely help the organization of the content. TheBigRedTank (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheBigRedTank: I hope you don't mind that I moved this discussion to a separate section on this talk page. I'm still catching up on your changes. Wdougs (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wdougs: Not at all, I definitely think these splits were for the best as the page went from 268kb into 7 averaging 53kb. TheBigRedTank (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Another new lawsuit, unsure where to put

I'm not sure where this newest lawsuit would fall. [link] The plaintiffs include a U.S. House Rep from Texas and the head of Arizona's GOP; it's filed against Pence, in a federal court in Texas, and is seeking to have a law passed in 1887 ruled unconstitutional. Anyone have suggestions? --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think, based on the precedent of other cases in this article, it makes the most sense to keep this new case under the Texas section since it was filed in a District Court in Texas. See, for example, King v. Whitmer which was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Michigan and remains in the Michigan section of this article. I agree with the judgement of the editor who put it in the Texas section and I've done some additional editing to the text as it was originally written. Thanks for bringing this up. 2600:1700:68D0:6F10:C89C:AEB9:4DCC:BB25 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
So the reason I didn't initially put it under a new section for Texas is because the case isn't about Texas' election, but is instead about a federal question that impacts activities that will occur in the U.S. Senate. Other lawsuits seem to be reported in sections related to what the lawsuit's outcome is intending to influence. For instance, in King v. Whitmer, the lawsuit was regarding Michigan's electoral votes. As another example, see Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar under Pennsylvania - despite being originally filed in the U.S. Supreme Court - because the suit is about decisions made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I put in a bit about the above as the formal start of an attempted coup. There are tons of legal websites out there, and all of them agree: If a defendant ignores a summons in a lawsuit, they've lost. It's called default. This is a friendly lawsuit, Trump is better off if Pence loses, heck, PENCE is better off if he loses. Thus, there is no reason for him to reply. None. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an American lawyer but from what I can gather, default judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is discretionary and the judge can deny a motion for a default judgment even if the defendant does not reply (see [5]). Also, per Rule 55(d) of the FRoCP "A default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court." Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds as if a default judgment against Pence, here sued in his capacity as an "officer" of the United States can only happen if the court believes the case has merit. But for purposes of Wikipedia, you would need to find a reliable source saying what you tried to add specifically mentioning this case. Everything else would be OR. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pence has responded, so the suppositions by @Arglebargle79: seem to be moot. [6] IHateAccounts (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are. I've no problem with that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Small word choices getting reverted

I was trying to make some of the content more NPOV and keep getting my changes reverted without comment (currently the thing considered an edit war). I worry it can be misleading to describe the accusations of voting corruption as hands down false, and I reviewed some citations and they didn't mention that these things were false, simply that they were discarded and basically very overblown. There is actual small voting corrupting that people are working hard to fight, and Trump's attempts to yell about made up corruption everywhere could harm that fight. Here my edits were marked as POVPUSH without any additional comment and reverted without any comment at all. I'm not a big participant in wikipedia, and usually don't get into conflicts when I do edit it, and I'm not sure how to pursue this further. I think it is incredibly important we stick to what is clearly true, rather than pushing various sides, in situations like these, or the truth can get covered up by the big thing of the day, which presently is either no voting fraud or immense voting fraud, with no middle ground for the reality where people supporting both parties engage in a small amount of probably balanced fraud. 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:5515 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The language you keep trying to include does not improve the description. Every source provided in the multi-source reference describes claims of widespread election fraud as "false." So I see no reason to change the succinct prose, Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely asserted widespread election fraud... to your suggestion of the far less-succinct, Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters have been widely refuted in their assertions of widespread election fraud... --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Request correct "partial dissent" to "Statement of Justice Alito" The current article wording is incorrect, no dissent or partial dissent was filed by Justices Alito or Thomas. "Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, then partially dissented:"

Per the Supreme Court source document a statement was made, not a partial dissent, the correct legal wording is important, Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.236.192 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Additionally, the case was described as dismissed, but it was denied. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential discrepancy in count tables: How many trials are still ongoing?

At the time of this writing, the "unresolved cases" table of the "Counts" section has eight cases listed. Six of these cases have yet to exhaust their appeals and two of these cases have ongoing trials (MWRO v. DJT in DC and DJT v. Boockvar in PA). The table listing the "total counts" directly above that, however, does not match those numbers. The "total counts" table lists three ongoing trials. Of those supposed three ongoing trials, one is in PA (matching DJT v. Boockvar) and two are in "other" jurisdictions (MWRO v. DJT meets this description).

Is there another ongoing case (in an "other" jurisdiction) that is not listed in the "ongoing cases" table, and, if so, should it be added to that table? If not, it seems the count of ongoing trials in the "total counts" table should be reduced to two. So many cases have come and gone that I'd prefer to not presume that my own memory of the count is correct. 2600:1700:68D0:6F10:B41E:DE34:A191:58E7 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Hi Wiki Editors! Long time donor, first time suggestor. :)

This is an important page for our country. I was about to create a page like this myself, which would be an unbiased summary of all the court cases, and it seems you have made incredible progress here. It is missing some important information: 1. Name of Judge 2. Political affiliation 3. Trump appointee? (Y/N) 4. The total number of cases. It's missing a bunch. It's hard to keep up I"m sure. I heard there were 61 total thus far. I've seen articles that say "over 50", but it is surprisingly hard to find an accurate, unbiased, summary of all of them. This seems right in Wikipedia's wheelhouse!

Ideally there would be links to view the transcripts of these cases. I don't like excerpts from transcripts because they can be biased or viewed as biased, so maybe a link to the transcript and the identify where there is interesting testimony, so everyone can see the context.

Thank you for your contributions on this so far. I think this page could really help everyone understand the honest state of these cases based on filings and transcripts - vs seeing a summary from some reporter. BigDaddyWarbuck (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing your edit request, as edit requests are for particular changes that you have already made and want implemented in the article. However, I appreciate your enthusiasm here, and if you have reliable sources, I'd encourage you to edit this once your account is automatically confirmed (ten edits and three days). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @BigDaddyWarbuck: Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your suggestion. Wikipedia operates as an encyclopedia and as such, we rely on primarily on secondary sources such as news reports and books. Primary sources such as court decisions are only to be used as supplementary resources, although most cases already seem to have links to them; you are welcome to add any missing cases to Wikisource so they can be included. If you have any reliable sources that list those 61 cases you mentioned, feel free to suggest additions of specific cases. Based on our policy on due and undue weight, I do not believe the name's or political affiliations of judges or who appointed them are required to have a complete neutral list, unless there is any evidence in reliable sources that any of those factors played any role. Many news organizations have highlighted such factors, especially when the judges were nominated by Republicans, but I have so far not seen anyone suggest that this had any effect on the rulings.
Another tip: Edit requests generally require you to specify exactly what you wish to see added or changed, e.g. "Please add this link to the case X v. Y". Such requests are much more likely to succeed since they don't require editors to do the work for you of finding the content you want to see added. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul M. Davis

Maybe I am missing something but I don't see the Davis lawsuits listed.

To quote Mr. Davis, "This is not a Sidney Powell lawsuit. This is not a Rudy Giuliani lawsuit. This is not a Lin Wood lawsuit." No. It's way crazier even than those lawsuits. Way way crazier. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of inline comments in the article itself to provide feedback for editors is not encyclopedic (Personal disproval of the counts)

I found this added by an editor named: User:MickTravis_If

  • Note added by someone who has not been detailing these many cases. The total of 54 should be updated since several of these cases that were pending have now been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Washington DC. The total number of 'lawssuits' filed by Trump or his supporters over losing the 2020 election, is higher than 54 and there are none still pending, so it is inaccurate to say in all states but Nevada there are cases where there is "Appeal ongoing" or "Trial ongoing" even if it is only one or two.

If it isn't clear, let me state this is absolutely NOT my personal comment. I've added it here to start a discussion. I have also dropped a warning on the users talk page. Timmccloud (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for a case's inclusion in this article vs. in a state-specific article

There have been many iterations of Wikipedia attempting to catalog litigation related to the 2020 US elections. This is fine, and has mostly been due to the situation changing over time. For example, there was originally one article containing all lawsuits pre- and post-election, but this became unwieldy as more and more lawsuits were filed. Then the offshoot post-election litigation article became unwieldy itself due to size, resulting in the creation of state-specific post-election litigation articles.

As I said, this is fine on its own, but I think it has led to a situation in which it's not clear to me why some lawsuits are tabulated and summarized in this article, as opposed to being only detailed in the relevant state article, or if there is supposed to be some overlap, etc. Unless I have missed something, there is no sentence in this article saying something like: "This specific article catalogs lawsuits which meet the criteria [X,Y,Z]. Further details about lawsuits in a specific state can be found linked in each state's section of this article."

One sign of the lack of clarity here is that as the article stands now, not all the cases given text summaries in the subheaders are given full entries in the summary table and vice versa. 'DJTfP v. Boockvar et al.', 'DJTfP v. Oliver et al.', and 'Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin' are given text summaries in the body of this article, but are not given rows in the 'Summary' table. Two of those cases are also from states with their own litigation articles. Is there a reason that those cases are included in this article instead of the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin articles? Conversely, 'BGT v. DJT et al.' has a row in the summary table but no text summary in the article body.

There is also the related issue of the Dominion/Smartmatic defamation lawsuits, which are mentioned more than once in this article (even in the lede) but it's not clear if they are listed in the table of counts or why they are not given text summaries in the article body. Are these defamation lawsuits not good for inclusion in tables because they are not about election procedures but rather about allegations about election procedures?

I think it would be helpful to 1) define a clear criteria by which a lawsuit should be tallied and summarized in this article (as opposed to in a state-specific article, or not at all), 2) state this criteria clearly at the end of the lede (and maybe "Summary of post-election lawsuits" section), and 3) add or remove cases from those currently listed such that the article comes into line with the criteria.

2001:480:91:5401:0:0:0:543 (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

More

  • Latinos for Trump v. Sessions (6:21-cv-00043). District Court, W.D. Texas (Court Listener). Aims to disqualify Congress entirely and there Biden and Harris as they were confirmed on Jan 6 and 7 by said Congress.
  • Bravo v. Pelosi (6:21-cv-00162). District Court, W.D. Texas (Court Listener). Same. Filed by Paul M. Davis after he got fired by his clients from the above lawsuit.
  • Ayers v. Wilkinson (1:21-cv-00551). District Court, District of Columbia (Court Listener). Similar. Pro se, probably not worth mentioning at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Another one

86 lawsuits?

The first sentence of the lead says "filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits." I don't see any of the provided references support that. It appears the 86 figure came exclusively from George Stephanopoulos: "there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed"[7] but I think he misspoke. My understanding is 86 judges, either independently or collectively in a panel or full court decision, rejected the suits. Marc Elias, who was deeply involved in the litigation, says the number was 63 by January 11.[8]] soibangla (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection within 72 hours, I will change 86 to "at least 63."[9] soibangla (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a related question. So, the first sentence of the article now states that the Trump campaign filed at least 63 lawsuits contesting the election results. However, the table provided in the article lists only 55. Why? Amandil21 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Table of Counts, in section 'Summary of post-election lawsuits'

The column named "Ruled (against)" contains inaccurate data; 1 case in Pennsylvania was not ruled against. 'Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections' was ruled in favor of the plaintiffs; that Secretary Boockvar did not have statutory authority to extend the deadline to correct ballots submitted with incorrect personal information. The ruling set the deadline back to Nov 9th, from Nov 12th as recommended by Boockvar. Though a minor victory for Trump and his allies, it was certainly not a ruling against.

A "Ruled (for)" Column must be added alongside the against column, to include this case where it belongs. 71.40.21.239 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit request is to correct misinformation, and has had no traction on Talk page yet. 71.40.21.239 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
See the Nov 12 order: https://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/election-2020/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-kathy-boockvar-and-county-boards-of-elections71.40.21.238 (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

misspelled word

The third sentence under the heading "Counts" contains a misspelled word: "iniatially". 72.201.118.17 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Table "Total count of post-election lawsuits" has bad arithmetic

The total column for Pennsylvania says 13, but the numbers to the lefty add up to 12. I don't know if the numbers to the left are wrong, or if the total is wrong.

Similarly, the "Ruled (for)" column has a 1 for Wisconsin, and no other non-zero numbers, yet the column total is 2. Again, I don't know which is wrong.

Finally, the grand total shows 56, but if the row and column errors mentioned above result in changes to the row and column totals, then the grand total should be 55. Rbandes (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election/Archive_1&oldid=1257214066"