Election Outcome Unclear Amid Legal Challenges

Election Outcome Unclear Amid Legal Challenges

November 8, 2020 Updated: December 14, 2020

To see further updated on this article. click here >> https://www.theepochtimes.com/election-outcome-unclear-amid-pending-recounts-and-legal-challenges_3569967.html

Updated Dec. 14, 2020 (2:00 a.m. ET)

On Nov. 3, Americans voted to elect their next leader. All 50 states have certified their 2020 election results but legal challenges are pending in several battleground states. The Epoch Times will continue to update this article as new information becomes available on the status of the 2020 presidential election.

The Epoch Times will not declare a winner of the election until all results are certified and any legal challenges are resolved. Read more here.

Key Points on the Status of the Presidential Race:

  • Legal challenges are ongoing in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

Overview of Key Lawsuits and Recounts



Texas v. Pennsylvania (22O155)

The state of Texas on Dec. 8 filed an election lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that the states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit seeks a declaration by the court that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. The state is also asking the top court to prohibit the counting of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, the lawsuit asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.

Dec. 7: Lawsuit (pdf) and motion (pdf) for preliminary injunction filed.

Dec. 8: U.S. Supreme Court orders defendant states to respond by Dec. 10.

Dec 9: President Donald Trump asks Supreme Court for permission to join lawsuit.

Dec. 9: Multiple states file an amicus brief urging the top court to take up the case.

Dec. 10: Six states and a group of state legislators and voters ask Supreme Court to join lawsuit.

Dec. 10: All four defendant states file responses to Texas’s motion. States and territories with Democrat AGs and officials file amicus briefs urging justices to reject the lawsuit.

Dec. 11: Supreme Court denies Texas’s motion to bring a suit against the four states. The top court ruled that Texas did not have the legal right to bring the case because it had not shown a valid interest to intervene in how other states handle their elections.

Epoch Times Photo


Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar et al (20-542) – U.S. Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Republicans are asking the nation’s top court to review a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that requires election officials to accept absentee ballots received up to three days after Nov. 3. Republicans are arguing that the court’s extension violates the Constitution as the decision to extend the deadline belongs to lawmakers, not the courts. The Supreme Court had previously rejected two requests by Republicans in this case: one to hold the state Supreme Court decision and the other to expedite consideration of a petition to review the merits of the case. Nevertheless, some members of the court have indicated an interest in taking up the case. A petition for a writ of certiorari is currently being considered.

Nov. 4: The Trump campaign files a motion to join the Supreme Court challenge.

Nov. 6: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issues a temporary order in the Supreme Court case requiring Pennsylvania to segregate ballots that arrived after Election Day.

Nov. 9: Multiple Republican-led states file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the lawsuit asking the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that extended the deadline for mail-in ballots in the state.

Kelly et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth: 620 MD 2020; State Supreme Court: 68 MAP 2020; U.S. Supreme Court: 20A98)

A Republican lawmaker and several GOP congressional candidates filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania seeking to either block the certification of election results or to exclude mail ballots from the count. Alternatively, the lawsuit asks the court to order the Pennsylvania General Assembly to choose the state’s electors.

Nov 21: Plaintiffs file a petition for review in an appellate state court (pdf).

Nov. 25: A Pennsylvania judge orders state officials to not certify the results of the 2020 election until her court holds a hearing on an election contest on Nov. 27. Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and other officials appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Nov. 25: The hearing on Nov. 27 has been delayed due to the appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Nov. 27: Plaintiffs urge the state Supreme Court to keep in place a preliminary injunction blocking the certification of the 2020 election.

Nov. 28: Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam decision to overturn the temporary block on the certification of the election results. The court also dismissed the case, saying that the group of Republicans had filed their challenge too late.

Dec. 1: Plaintiffs said they would request a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Court website shows the case was docketed on Dec. 3. Plaintiffs filed an emergency request asking Supreme Court to block the state from taking further action to certify the state’s results (pdf).

Dec. 2: Plaintiffs ask Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hold their ruling that allowed officials to complete the certification of election results while they appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (pdf).

Dec. 3: Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the request to hold their ruling while plaintiffs appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (pdf).

Dec. 3: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered defendants to respond to the emergency request by 9 a.m. on Dec. 8.

Dec. 8: U.S. Supreme Court denies the application for injunctive relief (pdf). An attorney for the plaintiffs said that he will file a separate petition for a writ of certiorari with a request to expedite the case in the coming days.

Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. v. Boockvar (District Court: 4:20-cv-02078; Appeals Court: 20-3371)

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking an injunction that blocks the Keystone State from certifying the results of the 2020 General Election, alleging that state election officials had “mismanaged the election process” and that the counting process was “shrouded in secrecy.”

Nov. 9: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 12: Officials in the election battleground state of Pennsylvania and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ask a federal judge to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit.

Nov. 17: Court hears oral arguments in the case over a motion to dismiss.

Nov. 18: Judge orders parties to file new briefs and motions to defend and clarify their positions and arguments in the case.

Nov. 21: A federal judge dismisses the Trump campaign lawsuit.

Nov. 23: U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants an expedited review of the case after the Trump campaign appeals case.

Nov. 27: Third Circuit rejects the Trump campaign’s request to allow it to amend their complaint and for injunctive relief (pdf). Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis indicated that they were going to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Re: Canvass of absentee and mail-in ballots (89-93 EM 2020)

The Trump campaign filed five separate petitions for a review of the Philadelphia County Board of Election’s decision to count votes that appear to have errors or irregularities because voters did not print their name or their address in the space provided on the outer envelope. The case challenges over 8,300 ballots cast in the county.

Nov. 13: The Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County denies all five petitions, prompting the Trump campaign to request an appeal to the appellate court.

Nov. 17: The Philadelphia County Board of Election asks the Pennslyvania Supreme Court to take up the case instead, arguing that the case is important and threatens to impact the board’s ability to meet reporting and certification deadlines (pdf).

Nov. 18: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agrees to take up the case (pdf).



Metcalfe v. Wolf (636 MD 2020)

A group of Republicans filed a lawsuit on Dec. 7 asking the court to prevent Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and other state officials from certifying the 2020 election results. The lawsuit also seeks to prohibit state officials from “casting votes for President in the Electoral College based upon election results that cannot be certified as accurate.” It claims that the 2020 election was “fraught with numerous violations of Pennsylvania’s Election Code” perpetrated by “predominantly Democratic county election officials” and various irregularities related to the handling of absentee and mail-in ballots.

Dec. 7: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Dec. 9: Judge dismisses case.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. et al v. Boockvar (602 M.D. 2020)

The Trump campaign sued to compel Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Kathy Boockvar and 67 counties to follow an earlier deadline for voters to provide missing proof of identification if not provided on their initial ballot. Boockvar issued election guidance that extended the Nov. 9 deadline by three days, the lawsuit (pdf) states.

Nov. 4: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 5: A Pennsylvania judge orders all counties to segregate ballots received between Nov. 10 and Nov. 12 for which missing identification was received from ballots verified on or before Nov. 9. Those segregated ballots cannot be counted until approved by the court.

Nov. 12: The judge orders the state to not count the segregated ballots, ruling that Boockvar “lacked statutory authority” to issue the guidance to change the deadline.

In Re: Canvassing Observation (Commonwealth Court: 1094 CD 20; Supreme Court: 425 EAL 2020/30 EAP 2020)

The Trump campaign filed an appeal of a lower state court decision in Pennsylvania, asking the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to halt vote counting until Republican observers are granted adequate access

Nov. 4: Lower state court decision appealed (pdf).

Nov. 5: A Pennsylvania appellate court rules in favor of the Trump campaign (pdf), prompting election officials to appeal.

Nov. 9: The state Supreme Court says that it would hear the election officials’ appeal (pdf).

Nov. 11: Election official files brief at the state Supreme Court (pdf).

Nov: 13: Trump campaign files brief at the state Supreme Court (pdf). Pennsylvania Democratic Party, who intervened in the case, files brief in the same court (pdf).

Nov. 17: Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules 5-2 to reverse appellate court’s decision. The majority panel rules the state’s election code does not set a minimum distance poll observers need to stand in order to watch ballot counts and meet the laws’ requirements.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery County Board of Elections (Trial court: 18680; Commonwealth Court: 1171 CD 2020)

The Trump campaign sued the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in ballots that do not comply with the election requirements. The campaign alleges that election officials were counting ballots in which the outer declaration envelope was not completely filled in with voters’ signature, address, and date. The campaign identified about 600 ballots, at the time of the filing, that did not meet such requirements.

Nov. 5: Petition for review filed (pdf).

Nov. 13: Petition denied by the court (pdf). The Montgomery County Board of Elections was ordered to count the 592 ballots.

Nov. 16: The Trump campaign appeals case to the state’s Commonwealth Court (pdf).

Nov. 19: The Trump campaign withdraws appeal (pdf). The court closes the case.

Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County’s Board of Elections (20-cv-05533)

The Trump campaign sued Philadelphia County’s Board of Elections to seek an emergency injunction to stop ballot counting in Philadelphia.

Nov. 5: A federal judge denies the emergency request from the Trump campaign.


Epoch Times Photo


Trump v. The Wisconsin Elections Commission (2:20-cv-01785)

President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against election officials and leaders in Wisconsin on Dec. 2, alleging “unlawful and unconstitutional” acts. The president is asking the court to declare a number of alleged “constitutional violations by defendants” and send the matter to the Wisconsin Legislature for appropriate relief pursuant to the Constitution.

Dec. 2: Lawsuit filed.

Dec. 10: Court holds hearing.

Dec. 12: Federal judge dismisses the case.

Trump v. Biden (2020CV007092)

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence file an appeal to contest the Wisconsin recount in Milwaukee and Dane County.

Dec. 3: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Dec. 11: Judge tosses out the case. The attorney representing the Trump campaign signaled that he intends to appeal the decision.

Dec. 11: The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.

Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (District Court: 2:20-cv-01771; Appeal Court: 20-3396)

Lawyer Sidney Powell filed a lawsuit on Dec. 1 seeking to de-certify and invalidate improper votes in Wisconsin over allegations of election fraud. She is representing a Republican presidential elector. One of the plaintiffs Derrick Van Orden was removed from the complaint after filing.

Dec 1: Lawsuit filed (pdf). Powell also filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief (pdf).

Dec. 6: Judge rejects Democratic Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee’s request to join lawsuit.

Dec. 9: Judge dismisses case (pdf). Powell said her team will seek an emergency review in the case.

Dec. 10: Powell’s team files notice of appeal.



Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. WI Elections Commission (2020AP001930)

A Wisconsin non-profit and more than two dozen voters filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission asking the state Supreme Court to block the certification of election results because of alleged irregularities. The lawsuit claims that it found that more than 10,000 Republican ballots weren’t counted; more than 10,000 GOP voters who had their ballots requested and filled in by another person; and around 100,000 illegal ballots that were counted anyway. The suit details a series of alleged illegal actions taken by Wisconsin officials that led to significant numbers of improper votes being counted, such as not enforcing state laws that require voters to present photo identification when requesting an absentee, or mail-in, ballot.

Nov. 24: Plaintiffs file an emergency petition for original action at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The election commission is ordered to file a response by Nov. 27.

Dec. 4: The petition for leave to commence an original action is denied.

Trump v. Evers (2020AP001971 – OA)

President Donald Trump’s campaign filed a lawsuit on Dec. 1 in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, alleging there is clear evidence of illegal activity that altered the outcome of the presidential election. The allegedly unlawful actions affected at least 221,000 ballots, according to campaign officials.

Dec. 1: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Dec. 3: The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied request to hear case, saying that according to state law the challenge to election results should first be heard by the state circuit court (pdf).

Langenhorst v. Pecore (1:20-cv-01701)

A third-party lawsuit filed in Wisconsin is seeking to exclude election results in three of the state’s counties, alleging that “sufficient evidence that illegal votes were counted.” The lawsuit, filed by three voters, asks the court to invalidate and block the certification of the election results.

Nov. 13: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 16: Plaintiffs voluntarily request to dismiss the lawsuit and the judge terminated the case.


Nov. 4: The Trump campaign says it will request a recount in Wisconsin.

Nov. 7: Justin Clark, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, announces that his team would initiate the recount.

Nov. 18: The Trump campaign says it will file for a partial recount in Wisconsin that targets several counties, spending $3 million to cover the estimated cost.

Nov. 20: The Wisconsin partial recount begins. It is expected to be completed on Dec. 1.

Nov. 30: Wisconsin partial recount completed.


Epoch Times Photo


Trump v. Raffensperger (2020CV343255; Georgia Supreme Court: S21M0561)

President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign filed an election contest in Georgia on Dec. 4 alleging that several Georgia election officials committed “repeated violations of the election code” which “constituted an abandonment of the legislature’s duly enacted framework for conducting the election and for choosing presidential electors, contrary to Georgia law and the United States Constitution.” The campaign is asking the court to declare that ineligible voters cast votes during the Nov. 3 election, void the results of the election, and order a new presidential election in the state, among other remedies.

Dec. 4: Election contest filed (pdf).

Dec. 11: Trump asks Georgia’s Supreme Court to review the case.

Dec. 12: Georgia Supreme Court dismisses the case.

Pearson v. Kemp (District: 1:20-cv-04809; Appeals: 20-14480)

Lawyer Sidney Powell is representing a group of Republican plaintiffs seeking to invalidate the election results in Georgia over allegations of “massive fraud” in particular ballot stuffing and voter manipulation through the use of the Dominion voting system. The suit alleges, citing expert analysis, that at least 96,600 votes were illegally counted during the Georgia 2020 general election. Powell filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs including Republican Party nominees for the electoral college, the chairman of the Cobb County Republican Party Jason Shepherd, and the Assistant Secretary of the Georgia Republican Party, Brian Jay Van Gundy.

Nov. 25: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Nov. 27: Plaintiffs file a motion for injunctive relief (pdf)

Dec. 1: Judge postpones a scheduled Dec. 4 hearing (pdf)

Dec. 2: Federal appeals court grants plaintiff’s request to expedite the appeal, after Powell sought an emergency appeal from the Eleventh Circuit. Powell was seeking a statewide order after a district judge temporarily blocked election officials from wiping or altering Dominion Voting Systems machines in only three counties.

Dec. 4: Eleventh Circuit dismisses Powell’s appeal, ruling that they do not have jurisdiction to hear the case (pdf). The judges allowed the case to proceed in the district court.

Dec. 7: Federal judge dismisses case, ruling that the plaintiffs have no legal standing to sue. Powell filed a notice of appeal.

Dec. 11: Powell’s team files an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wood v. Raffensperger (District: 1:20-cv-04651/Appeals: 20-14418)

Lin Wood, an attorney with Trump’s reelection campaign sued Georgia’s Secretary of State and election officials in a bid to stop the certification of election results, claiming that election rules unconstitutionally changed by state officials could have invalidated absentee ballots cast in the 2020 election.

Nov. 13: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 16: Amended complaint filed (pdf).

Nov. 19: Federal judge denies a request to block the certification of the state’s election results. The judge ruled that Wood lacked legal standing as an individual voter to challenge Georgia’s election procedures. Wood hinted that he will file an appeal in the 11th Circuit.

Nov. 24: Wood’s lawyers file an emergency appeal to the 11th Circuit court.

Nov. 25: Appeals court grants Wood’s motion for expedited review of the case.

Dec. 5: 11th Circuit upholds Nov. 19 ruling by a federal judge. Wood indicated on Dec. 6 that he plans to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dec. 11: The Supreme Court dockets Lin Wood’s appeal. The appeal was filed on Dec. 8.



Boland v. Raffensperger (2020CV343018)

Registered elector Paul Boland filed a lawsuit against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger seeking to decertify the state’s 2020 election results until an investigation is completed into claims that ballots were cast by non-residents and that signature-verification practices were lax. The lawsuit claims that 20,312 ballots were cast by people who are no longer residents of Georgia and that “suspiciously low ballot rejection rates” suggest signature-verification procedures “were not enforced with their usual rigor,” resulting in dilution of Boland’s vote, “casting doubt on the integrity of the Election” and providing grounds to contest the Georgia vote.

Nov. 30: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Dec. 8: Judge dismisses case (pdf).

John Wood v. Raffensperger (2020CV342959)

The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit on behalf of John Wood, president of the Georgia Voters Alliance, asking the court to nullify the state’s election results due to significant allegations of voting irregularities. The lawsuit alleges that over 150,000 “illegal votes” were counted, while over 40,000 “legal votes” were not counted. Illegal votes were ones where voters voted where they did not reside, were out-of-state residents voting in Georgia, or double votes occurred. Meanwhile, some 20,000 absentee ballots were requested which were not asked for by the person identified in Georgia’s database

Nov. 25: The Amistad Project announces lawsuit (pdf).

Dec. 8: Judge dismisses the petition and closes case.

In Re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received After 7:00 P.M. on November 3, 2020

The Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party filed a lawsuit in Georgia alleging that absentee ballots were improperly counted after the state’s deadline.

Nov. 4: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 5: A judge in Georgia dismisses the lawsuit.

Recount updates:

Nov. 6: Georgia’s secretary of state announces that the state will have a recount.

Nov. 11: Georgia’s secretary of state announces the state would conduct a manual hand recount.

Nov. 13: The largest hand recount of ballots in U.S. history begins in Georgia. The secretary of state’s office has instructed county election officials to complete the audit by 11:59 p.m. on Nov. 18. The deadline for the state to certify the results is Nov. 20. The Trump campaign is challenging the recount process because it does not include signature matching.

Nov. 19: Georgia finishes its statewide risk-limiting hand count audit of the 2020 election results and “upheld and reaffirmed the original outcome produced by the machine tally of votes cast.” The Trump campaign is disputing the results, arguing that the hand recount did not include a signature matching process and so “simply recounted all of its illegal ballots.”

Nov. 21: The Trump campaign requests a new recount citing a lack of signature matching and “other vital safeguards” during the risk-limiting audit.

Nov. 24: Poll workers across Georgia begin a machine recount of roughly 5 million votes cast in 2020 presidential election.

Dec. 4: All 159 counties have reported their results, according to the state.

Dec. 7: Georgia secretary of state’s office certified the recount result and called the state for Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Epoch Times Photo


Bowyer v. Ducey (Trial court: 2:20-cv-02321-DJH; Appeals Court: )

Lawyer Sidney Powell filed a federal lawsuit on Dec. 2 seeking to de-certify and invalidate improper votes in Arizona over election fraud, and to order officials to preserve equipment and voting data for inspection. The suit alleges that over 412,000 votes were cast illegally in the state. Most of the plaintiffs are Republican presidential electors in the state and members of the Republican party in the state.

Dec. 2: Lawsuit filed (pdf). Powell also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (pdf).

Dec 5: Judge schedules hearing for Tuesday, Dec. 8 to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants. Powell asks the court to expand the hearing time from one hour to three hours in order to allow witnesses to present evidence.

Dec. 6: Judge rejects request for a three-hour hearing to hear witnesses and limits hearing to motion to dismiss.

Dec. 9: Judge dismisses case (pdf). A co-counsel on the case told The Epoch Times that they intend to appeal the case.

Dec. 10: Powell’s team files notice of appeal.

Dec. 11: Powell’s team files an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ward v. Jackson, et al. (CV2020-015285)

Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward filed a petition on Nov. 24 for early inspection of mail-in ballot envelopes and signatures, ahead of an anticipated elections contest against 11 Arizona Democrat presidential electors. Ward’s challenge alleges that some suburbs in Maricopa County had an unusually high number of duplicated ballots. It also claims that there were insufficient safeguards to verify mail-in ballots.

Nov. 24: Petition filed.

Dec. 2: Plaintiff files motion to compel or motion for continued inspection (pdf).

Dec. 4: After two days of hearings, an Arizona judge denies relief for the plaintiff (pdf), ruling that the evidence did not show fraud or misconduct. The judge also found that there was a low error rate and that it would not impact the outcome of the election. Ward has indicated that she would appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.

Dec. 7: Arizona Supreme Court granted a request to expeditiously review the ruling.

Dec. 8: Arizona Supreme Court denies Ward’s request for relief and upholds trial judge’s decision.

Dec. 11: Ward announces the Arizona Republican Party will appeal its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.



Stevenson v. Ducey (CV2020-096490)

Members of the Arizona Election Integrity Association filed an election contest on Dec. 4 seeking to de-certify the Nov. 3 election results in the state. The lawsuit alleged that private funds were distributed to election officials across the country—and in Arizona—which were used to “dictate” how officials managed the election. It also claims that Arizona’s absentee ballot error rate exceed the narrow margins of error. The suit claims that over 240,000 ballots in the state that were counted were unlawful or illegal and that over 130,000 legal ballots were not counted.

Dec. 4: Election contest filed (pdf).

Dec. 7: Petitioners voluntarily dismisses case (pdf).

Aguilera v. Fontes et al (CV2020-014562)

Two Arizona residents filed a lawsuit against state officials, seeking relief for a violation of their right to vote when election officials allegedly failed to follow the correct election procedures. Laurie Aguilera had claimed she was denied the right to vote because she was not given a new ballot after her vote was rejected by the tabulation machine. Meanwhile, Dovocan Drobina claims that his vote was not properly counted by the machines.

Nov. 12: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 20: A state judge dismisses the challenge.

Arizona Republican Party v Fontes et al (CV2020-014553)

The Republican Party of Arizona filed a lawsuit (pdf) against Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes and other state officials, seeking a hand count of votes by precinct, as opposed to by voting centers. Under the Secretary of State’s manual, election officials must perform a limited precinct hand count audit after every general election. For the 2020 election, Maricopa County set up “vote centers” across the county rather than assign voters to “polling places” in their precincts, as had been the traditional practice in prior elections. The difference in sampling vote centers compared to precincts is that there are significantly fewer vote centers. The state’s Republicans, hence, are asking for the sampling of precincts rather than vote centers for the hand count audit.

Nov. 13: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 18: Oral arguments scheduled.

Nov. 19: A state judge dismisses the lawsuit (pdf).

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. et al vs Hobbs et al (CV2020-014248)

The Trump campaign and the RNC filed a lawsuit over rejected votes in Maricopa County. The lawsuit alleges in-person votes were disregarded as a result of improper guidance provided by poll workers.

Nov. 7: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 13: The Trump campaign drops its lawsuit, telling the court “tabulation of votes statewide has rendered unnecessary a judicial ruling as to the presidential electors (pdf).”

Nov. 16: Court dismisses the case.

Aguilera v. Fontes et al (CV2020-014083)

The Trump campaign and RNC asked an Arizona judge to let them join a lawsuit that alleges vote tabulation equipment in metro Phoenix was unable to record a voter’s ballot because she completed it with a county-issued Sharpie pen

Nov. 4: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 5: The Trump campaign and RNC ask an Arizona judge to let them join the lawsuit.

Nov. 7: Attorneys who challenged the use of the markers tell the court they’re dismissing their legal challenge.

Epoch Times Photo


None pending



Law  v. Whitmer  (20 OC 00163 1B)

The United States Electoral College candidates in Nevada who pledged to President Donald Trump filed an election contest on Nov. 17, alleging irregularities, improprieties, and fraud in the state’s 2020 presidential election. The contest, filed in the First Judicial District Court in Carson City, seeks to have Trump declared as the winner in Nevada, or to have the election annulled. The plaintiffs allege that the election machines used throughout the state are unreliable, that observers were denied access to the ballot duplication process, and that alleged vote-buying occurred through some Native American outreach programs.

Nov. 17: Election contest filed (pdf).

Nov. 23: Defendants file motion to dismiss (pdf).

Dec. 4: State judge in Carson City dismisses election contest, ruling that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove that illegal votes were cast and counted and that legal votes were not counted (pdf). A spokesperson for the lawyer representing plaintiffs said they intend to appeal the ruling to Nevada Supreme Court.

Dec. 8: Nevada Supreme Court affirms state judge’s order to dismiss election contest (pdf).

Stokke v. Cegavske (2:20-cv-02046)

A third-party in Nevada filed a lawsuit that had several of its allegations promoted by the Trump campaign. The lawsuit seeks to change the signature verification procedures used for processing ballots. The plaintiffs include the congressional campaigns of two Nevada Republicans and a voter.

Nov. 5: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 6: A federal judge denies a request for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the use of the signature verification machine. No other actions have been taken in the case since.

Nov. 24: Lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of the case.

Kraus v. Cegavske (20-oc-001421B)

The Trump campaign and the Nevada Republican Party sued election officials in the Las Vegas area, seeking to halt the ballot counting process immediately until Trump campaign volunteers are allowed to closely observe the process. The lawsuit was filed against Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, and Joseph Gloria, registrar of voters for Clark County, Nevada’s most populous county, which includes the city of Las Vegas.

Oct. 23: Lawsuit filed (pdf).

Oct. 29: A state judge rejects a lawsuit seeking expanded access to poll watchers, prompting the Trump campaign to appeal that decision to the state Supreme Court.

Nov. 10: The Trump campaign moves to dismiss their appeal after reaching a settlement with state officials to allow for more observers.

Epoch Times Photo


King v. Whitmer (2:20-cv-13134)

Lawyer Sidney Powell filed a lawsuit in a Michigan federal court on behalf of a group of Republicans alleging that “massive election fraud” and violations to the state election code in the Nov. 3 election. It claims that the fraud took place through a “troubling, insidious, and egregious ploy ” of ballot stuffing, which gave Democratic nominee Joe Biden a lead in the state. The fraud allegedly was rendered invisible through the help of using election software and hardware from Dominion Voting Systems, the lawsuit claims. Plaintiffs in the civil action are six registered Michigan voters and nominees of the Republican Party to the electoral college.

Nov. 25: Lawsuit filed in a federal court (pdf). The plaintiffs also filed a temporary restraining order.

Dec. 7: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit, characterizing the allegations as “conjecture and speculation.” (pdf)

Dec. 8: Lawyers file notice of appeal to ask the circuit court to review the decision.

Dec. 11: Powell’s team files a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dec. 13: Powell’s team sends a letter to Supreme Court asking for permission to file new evidence under seal.

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson (Trial court: 20-000225–MZ; Michigan Court of Appeals: 355378; Michigan Supreme Court: 162320) 

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in Michigan to halt vote counting until Republican observers are granted adequate access.

Nov. 4: Lawsuit filed.

N0v. 5: Michigan judge denies request by the Trump campaign (pdf).

Nov. 6: The Trump campaign files a motion asking the state’s court of appeals to review the case. The Michigan Court of Appeals subsequently sends a letter to the campaign on Nov. 9 asking for missing documents.

Nov. 18: The City of Detroit filed a request to join the lawsuit.

Dec. 4: Michigan Court of Appeals denies request to review the case (pdf).

Dec. 7: Trump campaign files request to state Supreme Court to review lower court’s Nov. 5 decision.

Dec. 11: Michigan Supreme Court declines to hear the case.



Johnson v. Benson (162286)

The Amistad Project announced a lawsuit against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson asking the state Supreme Court to invalidate the state’s election results, arguing that state and local officials engaged in unlawful conduct in how they handled the election. The suit claims that Benson’s COVID-19 measures by sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications to every household in the state violated election laws and the intent of the Michigan legislature. The Amistad Project is representing a poll challenger and a voter in this suit.

Nov. 27Lawsuit announced. Court says the documents will be docketed as filed on Nov. 30 due to court rules. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to consider their claims urgently.

Dec. 9: State judge denies relief to the plaintiff.

Cheryl A Costantino v City of Detroit (20-014780-AW)

The Great Lakes Justice Center filed a lawsuit (pdf) in Wayne County Circuit Court alleging voter fraud in ballot-counting procedures. The suit alleges county election officials allowed various fraudulent processing of votes, including telling poll workers to backdate ballots and not verify signatures on absentee ballots. Several witnesses have filed sworn affidavits attesting to alleged election fraud. The plaintiffs, two poll challengers, are seeking a temporary restraining order on ballot counting. The judge in the case heard arguments on Nov. 11 over a motion asking the court to block the certification of election results, to order an audit, and for a protective order.

Nov. 9: Lawsuit filed

Nov. 11: Judge hears arguments over a motion asking the court to block the certification of election results, to order an audit, and for a protective order.

Nov. 13: Judge denies the requests submitted in the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs sought an order for an audit of the election and a delay to the certification of the results.

Nov. 16: The plaintiffs appeal the judge’s order issued on Nov. 13. The Michigan State Court of Appeals denied the appeal.

Nov. 17: The plaintiffs appeal the Michigan State Court of Appeals decision at the Michigan Supreme Court.

Nov. 23: Michigan Supreme Court ruled 6–1 to deny the plaintiffs’ request for the court to review the lower court’s decision (pdf) on injunctive relief. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brian Zahra, joined by another justice, said Michigan’s certification of the results had rendered the request to block the certification moot, however, he ordered the trial court to expeditiously consider the other issues in the case related to allegations of voter fraud.

Nov. 25: Plaintiffs lawyers file a motion seeking an audit of Nov. 3 election results under the Michigan Constitution.

Dec. 4: Plaintiffs lawyers ask a state judge to order an immediate audit of election results during a hearing on Dec. 3. The judge indicated it would issue an opinion by noon on Dec. 8.

Dec. 8: State judge denied the request for an audit of election results, ruling that the request was “premature.” The judge said that if the secretary of state does not conduct an audit then the plaintiffs “could file a mandamus petition with the Michigan Court of Claims,” recognizing their “constitutional right to an audit.”

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson (1:20-cv-01083) – U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan Southern Division

The Trump campaign sued Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and other officials in a federal court, alleging pervasive election irregularities and violations in Wayne County. The lawsuit is also seeking to determine the accuracy of tabulating equipment or software used in the state due to reports of malfunctioning software.

Nov. 11: Lawsuit filed.

Nov. 17: Democratic National Committee and Michigan Democratic Party, both of whom asked to intervene in the case, ask the court to dismiss the case (pdf).

Nov. 19: The Trump campaign announces it was withdrawing the lawsuit after two Republicans on an election board in Wayne County rescinded their votes to certify the county’s 2020 election results. The campaign’s lawyer files a notice of voluntary dismissal (pdf).

See more here from source >> https://www.theepochtimes.com/election-outcome-unclear-amid-pending-recounts-and-legal-challenges_3569967.html

US News, Donald Trump, Trump News, Joe Biden, US Election Coverage, 2020 US Election, US Presidential Election, 2020, Elections, Fraud, Voter fraud, theft, States, Electoral College, Electorates, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Swing States, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Dominion, Smartmatic, William Bar, Lawsuits, Stop the steal, voting software, Jenna Ellis

#USNews, #DonaldTrump, #TrumpNews, #JoeBiden, #USElectionCoverage, #2020USElection, #USPresidentialElection, #2020, #Elections, #Fraud, #Voterfraud, #theft, #States, #ElectoralCollege, #Electorates, #Michigan, #Pennsylvania, #Arizona, #SwingStates, #RudyGiuliani, #SidneyPowell, #Dominion, #Smartmatic, #WilliamBar, #Lawsuits, #StopTheSteal, #VotingSoftware


Wordpress is loading infos from theepochtimes

Please wait for API server guteurls.de to collect data from