Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Prior to the 2020 United States presidential election, the COVID-19 pandemic caused many states to adjust their voting rules and processes. Litigation was initiated by Democrats, seeking measures to ease voting, and Republicans, seeking to block such measures. "[O]ver 230 election-related federal lawsuits were filed from January 1 to October 23, higher than any of the past three presidential election years during the same time period", according to a USA Today analysis. Issues related to mail-in and curbside voting, early voting, voter registration, photo ID and witness signature requirements, and voting rights for convicted felons.

Throughout 2020, the Supreme Court issued at least a dozen orders related to the 2020 primary and general elections. The court's conservative justices have objected to last-minute changes to elections that are ordered by federal judges, saying the power to administer elections lies solely with state legislatures; the court's liberal justices have favored the loosening of election rules. The deciding vote has often fallen to Chief Justice John Roberts, according to Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Under Roberts, the court has focused on keeping federal courts out of state elections, and has consistently treated election changes made by state judges or officials more leniently than those made by federal courts.

Summary of pre-election lawsuits

Counts +Count8337

Case summaries Pre-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential electionStateFirst filing dateCaseCourtDocket no(s).OutcomeCommentsReferencesArizonaMi Familia Vota v. HobbsU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit2:20-cv-01903-SPL (D.Ariz.)20-16932; 20-17000 (9thCir.)Two non-profit voter registration groups, the Arizona Coalition for Change and Mi Familia Vota, filed a motion asking the voter-registration deadline of October 5, 2020, be moved due to the COVID-19 pandemic; after opposing responses from Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs and the Republican National Committee, Judge Steven Logan extended the deadline to October 23. The same day, October 5, Hobbs and the RNC appealed to the 9th Circuit, which placed a stay on Logan's extended deadline effective October 15. On October 13, Judge Fletcher and Bybee ordered that those who registered after October 5 were not eligible to vote in the November election.ArizonaArizona Democratic Party v. HobbsU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit20-16759; 20-16766 (9thCir.)

2:20-cv-01143-DLR (D.Ariz.)Whether recent changes to Arizona's election procedures – which provide both absentee voters whose signatures on their mail-in ballots cannot be verified, and in-person voters who cannot provide proper identification at the polls, up to five days after Election Day to remedy their ballot identification issues – must also be extended to absentee voters who submit unsigned ballots.CaliforniaGallagher v. NewsomCalifornia Superior Court, County of SutterCVCS20-0912Challenging Executive Order N-67-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 3, 2020. The court found Order N-67-20 to be unconstitutional and enjoining Newsom from "amend[ing], alter[ing], or chang[ing] existing statutory law or mak[ing] new statutory or legislative policy" via the California Emergency Services Act.GeorgiaThe New Georgia Project v. RaffenspergerU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia20-13360-D (11thCir.) 1:20-CV-01986-ELR (N.D.Ga.)Whether Georgia's requirement that absentee ballots be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day poses an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Originally in favor of a 3-day extension to receive ballots, the decision was appealed. Republicans filed motion to stay the injunction that was granted on October 2 in the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by Judges Britt Grant and Barbara Lagoa. .MichiganMichigan Alliance for Retired Americans v. BensonMichigan Court of Appeals20-000108-MM (Mich.Ct.Cl.)1:20-cv-00948 (W.D.Mich.)354993 (Mich.App.)Michigan State Appeals court reversed lower state court ruling, finding the 8pm election deadline for receiving absentee ballots does NOT violate Const 1963, art 2, § 4 and that the court is bound by League of Women Voters of Mich v Secretary of State (League II), (issued July 14, 2020, Docket No. 353654).

Defendants have requested withdrawal of similar complaint pending in federal court.MinnesotaCarson v. SimonU.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota0:20-cv-02030Whether a measure by Minnesota elections officials extending the deadline for timely postmarked absentee ballots to be received and still counted until one week after Election Day violates the U.S. Constitution; and whether the challengers, two nominees to serve as Republican Party presidential electors in Minnesota, have legal standing to challenge the measure.NevadaKraus v. CegavskeNevada Supreme Court82018Appealed to Supreme Court of Nevada; settlement filed.NevadaDonald J. Trump for President v. CegavskeNevada District Court2:20-cv-01445-JCM-VCFWhether recent changes by the state legislature to Nevada's voting procedures including, among other things, the expansion of voting-by-mail and a requirement that officials count ballots received up to three days after Election Day, violate federal election law and the Fourteenth Amendment.New JerseyDonald J. Trump for President v. WayU.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey3:20-cv-10753-MAS-ZNQWhether an executive order by the governor of New Jersey in light of the coronavirus pandemic that requires mail-in ballots to be sent to all registered voters in the state, and extends the deadline for submitting them, violates federal election law and the Constitution.North CarolinaMoore v. CircostaU.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit1:20-cv-00911-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.)S:20-CV-507-D (E.D.N.C.)P20-513 (N.C.Ct.App.)440P20 (N.C.)20A72 (S.Ct.) 20–2118; 20-2119 (4thCir.)Whether coronavirus-related changes implemented after the start of absentee voting by North Carolina elections officials to a number of absentee ballot procedures – extending the deadline to receive ballots, and modifying requirements for postmarking and third-party collection of them – violate the state legislature's power to regulate elections under the Constitution as well as the equal protection clause.

M.D.N.C. stay denial of October 14 combined with Wise v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, 1:20-cv-00912.

SCOTUS stay denial on October 28.

U.S. Appeals 4th Cir briefing schedule deadlines through January 2021.PennsylvaniaJuly 10, 2020Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. BoockvarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania133 MM 2020; 407-MD-2020Whether injunctive relief and declaratory relief be given to the voters of Pennsylvania in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Remedies sought were Count 1: Concerning the use of drop boxes, Count 2: Allowing 3 additional days to receive mail in ballots, Count 3: On preemptively contacting voters to cure incomplete or incorrectly filled out ballots, Count 4: On allowing ballots without their secrecy envelope to not be invalidated, and Count 5: Declaring that the residency requirement for poll-watchers is constitutional.

Counts 1, 2, and 5 granted; Counts 3 and 4 denied.PennsylvaniaRepublican Party of Pennsylvania v. BoockvarSupreme Court of the United StatesNo. 20-542 (SCOTUS)A Supreme Court case to determine if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar. Not confirmed whether the court will rule on the issue. Justice Samuel Alito has ordered all such ballots to be kept and tabulated separately pending the outcome of this litigation.

As of November 30, 2020, the case was vided with Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

See also Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (No. 20-574)PennsylvaniaOctober 27, 2020Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic PartySupreme Court of the United StatesNo. 20-574 (SCOTUS)Another Supreme Court case to determine if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania usurped the authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar.

As of November 30, 2020, the case was vided with Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar.

See also Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar (No. 20-542).PennsylvaniaDonald J. Trump for President v. BoockvarU.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania2:20-cv-00966-NRWhether a number of Pennsylvania elections accommodations in light of the coronavirus pandemic – providing additional drop-off sites and alleviating signature-matching requirements for absentee ballots, as well as lifting a restriction on employing out-of-county poll workers – violate state election law and the U.S. Constitution.

Some of the issues initially raised in this case were determined by Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar thus significantly narrowing the focus of this case. Dismissed on a lack of standing and a lack of merit. Lack of standing due to lack of evidence regarding a "certain impending" harm of "vote dilution". Lack of merit due to federal courts "sphere does not extend to second-guessing and interfering with a State’s reasonable, nondiscriminatory election rules."TennesseeMemphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. HargettU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit3:20-cv-00374 (M.D.Tenn.); 20-6046 (6thCir.)Whether Tennessee may enforce a number of vote-by-mail regulations for the November 2020 election, including preventing first-time voters from applying for an absentee ballot, barring third-party distribution of absentee ballot applications, and a process for verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.TexasHotze v. HollinsU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit4:20-cv-03709A federal court lawsuit to have approximately 127,000 ballots thrown out due to the fact that they were done at drive-through stations. Republicans needed to prove an "evil motive".TexasIn re Steven Hotze, M.D., Harris Cnty. Republican Party, Hon. Keith Nielsen, and Sharon HemphillTexas Supreme Court20-0819TexasIn re Steven Hotze, M.D., Wendell Champion, Hon. Steven Toth, and Sharon HemphillTexas Supreme Court20-0863TexasTexas League of United Latin American Citizens v. AbbottU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit1:20-CV-1006-RP; 1:20-CV-1015-RPWhether Texas' limitation of one absentee ballot drop-off site per county violates the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The federal appeals court allowed the limitation to remain in place throughout the remainder of the 2020 election season. TexasTexas Democratic Party v. AbbottU.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas5:20-cv-00438Whether a Texas law requiring voters under the age of 65 to provide an excuse in order to vote by mail violates the 26th Amendment or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law does not violate the 26th Amendment, and sent case back to lower court for more proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court later upheld the age requirement in a related case, State of Texas v. Hollins. WashingtonWashington v. TrumpU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington1:20-CV-03127-SABWhether recent changes announced to the United States Postal Service violate federal administrative rulemaking requirements and infringe upon the rights of states to regulate elections under the Constitution.

Arizona

Arizona Democratic Party v. Hobbs