Election Lawsuits: A Familiar Strategy Reemerges
As the 2024 elections approach, a strategic playbook emerges once again, reminiscent of tactics seen in 2020. The strategy unfolds with a series of pre-election lawsuits alleging issues such as inflated voter rolls, unlawful voting, and flawed election procedures. Should the election results prove unsatisfactory to certain right-wing groups, these cases are expected to serve as justification for halting certification or altering outcomes. This approach, known from previous elections, is designed to create doubt about the integrity of the electoral process.
Conservative groups and election skeptics have initiated numerous lawsuits, mainly targeting swing states. Their goal is to empower local election boards to refuse certification, exclude late-arriving mail ballots, limit overseas and military voting, restrict ballot drop box access, enforce rigorous purging of voter rolls, and impose strict absentee ballot regulations. Despite variations in legal arguments and claims, a common objective unites these efforts: to cast doubt on the electoral system, paving the way for potential interventions.
These lawsuits, however, lack substantial grounding. Plaintiffs frequently present conspiracy theories, misinformation, and debunked claims, such as the fear of noncitizen voting, as evidence. Yet, existing safeguards ensure that voting remains the exclusive right of eligible citizens. The legal jargon used in these filings fails to mask the baseless nature of their claims.
Interestingly, many plaintiffs appear disinterested in securing court victories. In several cases initiated by right-wing activists, no motions have been filed requesting urgent court intervention before Election Day. If genuine concerns about voting systems existed, plaintiffs would likely pursue immediate remedies through preliminary injunctions. A representative from United Sovereign Americans admitted to using lawsuits to “pre-position standing” for post-Election Day actions, despite the fact that standing requires demonstrable harm.
Some lawsuits mirror past failed efforts. In Michigan, for instance, a case seeking aggressive voter purging replicates previous cases that ended in settlements or dismissals. A federal court recently dismissed this latest attempt.
Even if plaintiffs’ theories were factually supported, their proposed remedies—such as halting certification or overturning results—would be disproportionate. In over 20 cases, claims of inadequate voter roll maintenance have been made, yet the appropriate response is pre-election list maintenance, not discarding legitimate votes. State laws mandate election certification, and courts have already dismissed similar cases in several states, including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
The expectation is that courts will reject these unsubstantiated claims as they did in 2020. However, the intention behind these lawsuits extends beyond courtroom victories. Activists may use the existence of these legal actions to influence public perception, casting doubt on election integrity. This narrative targets those predisposed to believe in widespread voter fraud and the notion of a rigged electoral system.
As these familiar tactics reappear, it is crucial for the American public, media, and judiciary to recognize them as smoke and mirrors rather than substantive fire.
