- Nov 30, 2006
I have had people throw out half truths (some here, some on Facebook) about the specifics of the lawsuits involving the election. I thought I would try to put together a complete list...partially because by my own admission that while I know Trump has been absolutely obliterated in court and that his attorneys have failed to produce even the slightest evidence...I don't know the where and how.
I think I got them all....
|State||Initial Filing Date||Case Name||Court||Result||Comments|
|Arizona||12/2/2020||Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al.||Arizona United States District Court|
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|Dismissed / Appealed||Lawsuit seeking de-certification of Arizona results, litigated by Sidney Powell. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing; their fraud allegations were vague and implausible, and their evidence was unreliable or irrelevant.|
Appealed to the 9th circuit
|Georgia||11/13/2020||Wood v. Raffensperger et al.||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia||Dismissed / Appealed||Lawsuit challenging the inclusion of absentee ballots for the general election in Georgia.|
November 19: Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) request to halt certification was Denied as plaintiff Wood lacks standing and his constitutional rights arguments fail.
December 5: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Wood's motion for emergency relief.
Motion filed, for an expedited consideration for a writ of certorari at the Supreme Court of the United States.
|Georgia||11/27/2020||Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al.||U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia||Dismissed / Appealed||Litigated by Sidney Powell. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and filed the case too late, that the federal court had no jurisdiction, and that the relief was impossible to grant.|
Emergency petition filed in the Supreme Court of the United States for an emergency writ of mandamus.
|Michigan||11/25/2020||King et al. v. Whitmer et al.||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan||Dismissed / Appealed||On November 25, 2020, a group of voters filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan against Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan, and other state officials. The plaintiffs alleged a variety of violations of the Election Code and as a remedy, asked the court to decertify the state's election results or certify them for Trump. This was one of the 'Kraken' cases litigated by conservative lawyer Sidney Powell.|
On December 7, Judge Linda V. Parker denied the plaintiffs requested relief, saying it "greatly harms the public interest" and that the "ship has sailed." Parker further stated that the plaintiffs only offered "theories, conjecture, and speculation" of potential vote switching. The judge felt that the plaintiffs’ real motive for filing the case was not to win, but to shake "people's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."
On December 11, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certorari at the Supreme Court of the United States.
|New Mexico||12/14/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Oliver et al.||United States District Court for the District of New Mexico||Ongoing||Lawsuit regarding the use of drop boxes in the 2020 elections|
|Pennsylvania||11/22/2020||Bognet et al. v. Boockvar et al.||U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania||Dismissed / Appealed||Also called Bognet et al. v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania|
Asked a federal court to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing the receipt of ballots after Election Day. Dismissed by the District Court, appealed to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; dismissed, and appealed to Supreme Court
|Pennsylvania||12/20/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar et al.||US Supreme Court||Ongoing||Supreme Court appeal of multiple Pennsylvania lawsuits. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed with response due January 22, 2021. Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner. Motion of Constitutional Attorneys for leave to file amicus brief submitted. Amicus brief of Todd C. Bank submitted.|
|Wisconsin||12/01/2020||Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al.||United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin||Dismissed / Appealed||Plaintiffs challenge a variety of election practices and claim electronic ballot stuffing campaign occurred. Plaintiffs seek decertification of election results. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on December 9, 2020. The plaintiff also lacked legal standing.|
Appealed to the 7th Circuit
|State||Initial Filing Date||Case Name||Court||Result||Comments|
|Arizona||11/04/2020||Aguilera v. Fontes||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dropped||"Sharpie Lawsuit"|
|Arizona||11/12/2020||Aguilera v. Fontes||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dismissed with prejudice||Second suit brought by Aguilera, alleging her vote was not counted and asking for opportunity to cast a new ballot.|
|Arizona||11/07/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Hobbs||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dropped||Repackaged "Sharpie lawsuit". Plaintiffs allege local poll workers induced voters to override alerts from the tabulation machine when a vote was flagged as unreadable, causing affected votes on those ballots to be disqualified.|
|Arizona||11/12/2020||Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dismissed with prejudice||Suit seeks to force a hand count of votes separated by precinct instead of counting them by voting center.|
|Arizona||11/30/2020||Ward v. Jackson||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dismissed||Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certorari was filed. A motion for expedited consideration followed.|
An Arizona voter and state Republican Party Chair, Kelli Ward, challenged the signature verification process, claiming election workers were unfit to verify signatures. Ward also challenged the ballot duplication process, whereby bipartisan county workers transferred votes to new ballots when ballot tabulators could not read them, claiming that observers were not allowed to view the entire process. As a remedy, Ward asked the court to decertify the election results, where Biden won by 10,457 votes, and instead award the elector votes to Trump. Attorney Marc Elias represented the defendants, 11 Biden electors, and argued that the issues raised by Ward are "garden-variety errors." Judge Randall Warner dismissed the lawsuit on December 4.
After the Arizona Supreme Court rejected her appeal, concluding that Ward presented no evidence of misconduct, Ward appealed to the Supreme Court who also denied her request.
|Arizona||12/04/2020||Stevenson v. Ducey||Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County||Dropped||On December 4, 2020, members of Arizona Election Integrity Association (AEIA) filed an election contest lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The lawsuit challenged a total of 371,498 votes, alleging that the votes were illegally counted. The plaintiffs asked the Court to vacate the certification of Arizona's election results and issue an injunction to stop state election officials from certifying the election, so that the Arizona General Assembly can appoint electors. On December 7, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal|
|Federal||12/01/2020||Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.||US Supreme Court||Dismissed||Lawsuit filed by Texas attorney general against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.|
Dismissed due to lack of standing.
"The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
|Minnesota||11/24/2020||Tyler Kistner et al. v. Steve Simon, et al.||Minnesota Supreme Court||Dispositive in favor of the defense||Sought a temporary restraining order to delay the canvassing board's vote, alleging a variety of problems with the election.|
On December 4, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the doctrine of laches applied to petitioners' claims against the Secretary of State and that they had adequate time to bring suit prior to the election but failed to do so. In regards to observer access to post-election review, Minnesota law requires charges be served against county election officials which the petitioners did not do.
|Texas||12/27/2020||Gohmert et al. v. Pence||United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas||Dismissal / Affirmed||Seeks an expedited declaratory judgment finding that Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15 are unconstitutional because these provisions violate the Electors Clause and the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also request emergency injunctive relief required to effectuate the requested declaratory judgment.|
Dismissed due to lack of standing and jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed to the 5th Circuit, where the dismissal was quickly affirmed.
|Georgia||11/4/2020||In re: Enforcement of Election Laws and Securing Ballots Cast or Received after 7:00pm on November 3, 2020||Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia||Dismissed without prejudice||Plaintiffs, the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party, alleged late ballots were illegally counted.|
The lawsuit, regarding 53 ballots, was filed by the Trump campaign and the Georgia Republican Party on November 4 in the Chatham County Superior Court of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia. The campaign claimed that two witnesses had seen late ballots being improperly mixed with on-time ballots. Superior Court Judge James F. Bass Jr. denied the request and dismissed the suit on November 5, after hearing testimony from the chairman of the Chatham County Board of Registrars. The judge ruled that no evidence had been produced that the ballots were late.
|Georgia||11/11/2020||Brooks v. Mahoney||U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah Division)||Dropped||Plaintiffs claimed software glitch caused a miscount of votes.|
Four voters in Georgia sued Thomas Mahoney, Chairman of the Chatham County Board of Elections, in federal district court. The voters claimed a software glitch caused a miscounting of votes, and asked the court to stop certain counties from certifying their presidential election results. On November 16, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
|Georgia||12/04/2020||Trump v. Raffensperger||Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia|
Superior Court of Georgia
|Dismissed||Lawsuit filed on December 4, 2020 in Superior Court of Fulton County; initially dismissed because they forgot to pay the filing fee.|
Strangely immediately after appeal filed with the Supreme Court of Georgia on December 11; certiorari unanimously denied on December 12.
|Georgia||11/30/2020||Boland v. Raffensperger||Dismissed||Plaintiff claims state election officials failed to follow election code, and seeks audit of ballots or to block certification of election.|
|Michigan||11/4/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson||Michigan Court of Appeals||Dismissed||Lawsuit brought by the Trump Campaign attempting to stop the counting of absentee ballots in Michigan. Dismissed by court of claims.|
|Michigan||11/11/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Benson||U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan||Dropped||Trump lawsuit claiming fraud in the Wayne County election. The suit seeks to halt the certification of election results in Wayne County and statewide.|
|Michigan||11/4/2020||Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit Michigan||Third Judicial Circuit Court||Dismissed||A motion for preliminary injunctive relief during the interim was denied by Judge Timothy M Kenny stating that the "...Plaintiffs have made only a claim but have offered no evidence to support their assertions." at the time the motion was filed.|
|Michigan||11/11/2020||Bally v. Whitmer||U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan||Dropped||Plaintiffs seek to exclude all votes from Wayne, Washtenaw and Ingham Counties from Michigan's certified vote count.|
|Michigan||11/09/2020||Costantino v. Detroit||Michigan Supreme Court||Denied||Plaintiffs alleged election fraud, seeking to prevent the election results of Detroit and Wayne County from being certified. State trial court denied motion for injunction and issued a dispositive ruling; state court of appeals denied application for leave to appeal and peremptory relief.|
The state Supreme Court issued a dispositive ruling that the case was moot since the Board had already certified the election results.
|Michigan||11/30/2020||Johnson v. Benson||Michigan Supreme Court||Dismissed||The court ruled it didn't have any evidence to grant relief and motions to intervene denied.|
|Minnesota||11/24/2020||?||Minnesota Supreme Court||Dismissed||On November 24, 2020, a petition was filed in the Minnesota Supreme Court by 25 candidates from numerous races within Minnesota as well as a handful of voters against Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon and the state's canvassing board. The suit alleged various election problems and sought a temporary restraining order delaying certification of election results, which had already been certified the previous day.|
On December 4, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed all 3 claims filed by the petitioners, and thereby ordered that the whole petitioned filed on November 24, 2020 be dismissed.
The court's decision to dismiss was based partly on the grounds that petitioners should have filed suit earlier. "Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020," the ruling states. It goes on to say that "asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable."
|Nevada||11/05/2020||Stokke v. Cegavske||Nevada District Court||Dropped||On November 5, 2020, plaintiffs Jill Stokke, Chris Prudhome, Marchant for Congress, and Rodimer for Congress sued Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Clark County Registrar of Voters Joseph P. Gloria for illegal conduct. The initial complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on November 5, 2020, accused the defendants of "illegal conduct" across three counts, including "violations of the Elections Clause", violations of Equal Protection Clause (enforceable under 18 U.S.C. § 1983), and the "violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.8881 and 293.363" respectively. The complaint cited irregularities in "over 3,000 instances of ineligible individuals casting ballots", among 15 paragraphs of allegations of violating both state and federal law.|
The case was dropped on Nov 30th
|Nevada||11/16/2020||Marchant v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||Dismissed||On November 16, 2020, Jim Marchant filed a lawsuit against Clark County Registrar of Voters, Joseph P. Gloria, asking for a new election to be held. Marchant, a Republican congressional candidate, lost his bid against Democratic incumbent Steven Horsford. Marchant claimed signatures were verified using a computer system, whereas Nevada state law requires signature verification to be conducted by humans. On November 23, Clark County District Court Judge Gloria Sturman dismissed the case, citing jurisdictional issues.|
|Nevada||11/16/2020||Election Integrity Project of Nevada v. Nevada||Nevada District Court, Clark County||Dismissed||On November 16, 2020, the Election Integrity Project of Nevada filed a lawsuit against the state of Nevada, claiming to have found "extensive evidence" of voter fraud. The group asked for the election results to be invalidated and a new election to be ordered. On November 20, Clark County District Court Judge Gloria Sturman denied the request, calling it a "shocking ask"|
|Nevada||11/16/2020||Becker v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||Dismissed||Republican state senate candidate challenged use of software to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.|
|Nevada||11/17/2020||Law v. Whitmer||Nevada Supreme Court|
Nevada District Court, Carson City
|Dismissed||The Nevada Republican Party and the Trump campaign filed Law v. Whitmer on November 17, 2020, in the Nevada First Judicial District Court in Carson City. The six electors pledged to Biden are named as defendants, and the lawsuit asks to either pledge all six electors to Trump or else to annul the election results. The lawsuit uses "many of the same claims already rejected by local courts in previous lawsuits, including improper use of a signature verification machine and unfair observation rules", according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.|
On November 25, a judge allowed the Trump campaign to present its evidence of fraud in the election. The judge set the hearing for December 3, allowing 15 depositions. On December 4, the court denied the plaintiff's request, saying "Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason, nor in an amount equal to or greater than 33,596, or otherwise in an amount sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the election".
On December 8, the Supreme Court of Nevada unanimously affirmed the District Court's ruling, writing: "We...are not convinced that the district court erred in applying a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, as supported by the cases cited in the district court's order."
|Nevada||11/19/2020||Rodimer v. Gloria||Nevada District Court, Clark County||Dismissed||Republican state senate candidate seeking a new election.|
|Nevada||11/19/2020||Becker v. Cannizzaro||Nevada District Court, Clark County||Dropped||Republican candidate asking for a new election to be held, claiming that machine counting was illegal.|
|Pennsylvania||11/09/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar||U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania||Dismissed||Trump Campaign lawsuit filed against Democratic counties in Pennsylvania. The suit challenges the results of the election and asks the court to prohibit the certification of results|
The Trump campaign filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 22, 2020. Judge Stephanos Bibas released a sharply-worded legal opinion on November 27, which stated: "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." in regards to the allegation that the "...District Court abused its discretion in not letting the Campaign amend its complaint a second time."
|Pennsylvania||11/05/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia Cty. Bd. of Elections||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania||Dropped||Lawsuit about the number of poll watchers. After the parties to the lawsuit agreed to allow 60 observers each from the Democratic and Republican parties, the court dismissed the lawsuit in light of this agreement and denied the emergency injunction motion without prejudice as it was moot.|
|Pennsylvania||11/04/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar and Cty. Bds. of Elections||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||Ruled in favor of plantiff||The court concluded that Kathy Boockvar, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, lacked statutory authority to prolong the deadline for proof of identification and ordered for such segregated ballots not to be counted. May be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.|
|Pennsylvania||11/05/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections||Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County||Denied and appeal withdrawn||A petition to compel the Montgomery County Board of Elections to stop counting mail-in-ballots.|
November 13, 2020, petition was denied and the Montgomery County Board of Elections was ordered to count the 592 ballots. The decision was appealed 3 days later on November 16, but the appeal was withdrawn later that day.
|Pennsylvania||11/09/2020||Donald J. Trump for President v. Bucks Cty. Bd. of Elections||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||Dismissed||Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Bucks County Board of Elections is a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign and others in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on November 9, 2020. The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the board to count over 2,200 ballots that lacked a date or voter address, or were not sealed with secrecy sleeves, claiming the votes are invalid. The lawyers for the Trump campaign have signed an agreement that they "do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots." They also declared that they were not alleging votes from dead people, "misconduct", or "impropriety" related to those ballots, and had no evidence of such happenings.|
Judge Robert O. Baldi denied the plaintiffs petition and ordered all ballots to be counted. The Trump campaign appealed the decision; on November 25, the Commonwealth Court also ruled that all ballots should be counted.
The Trump campaign filed an emergency petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking for review of the case, and on December 8, the court denied the petition for appeal
|Pennsylvania||11/10/2020||In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, Gen. Election||Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County||Dismissed||In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020, General Election is a series of five lawsuits filed in the state's trial court on November 10, in which the Trump campaign sought to disqualify over 8,000 absentee ballots counted by state officials. The ballots had outer envelopes which were signed by the voters but lacked other information. Judge James Crumlish denied all challenges to the ballots. The case was transferred to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where the court rejected the Trump campaign's appeals on November 23.|
|Pennsylvania||11/03/2020||In re: Canvassing Observation||Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County||Ruled...mixed||On November 3, 2020, the Trump campaign filed a complaint alleging that their poll watchers could not see or had meaningful access to the ballots. Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County denied the oral petition on grounds that the witness provided could "observe the opening and sorting of ballots".|
The Trump campaign appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and the decision was reversed on the grounds that all poll watchers "be permitted to observe all aspects of the canvassing process within 6 feet, while adhering to all COVID-19 protocols, including, wearing masks and maintaining social distancing."
State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversing the Commonwealth Court's decision.
The Trump campaign appealed to the United States Supreme Court on December 20, 2020.
|Pennsylvania||11/10/2020||Pirkle v. Wolf||U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania||Dismissed||Attempt to block all votes from Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware and Allegheny Counties from being included in the state total. Consolidated with Donald J. Trump for President v. Philadelphia County Board of Elections|
|Pennsylvania||11/03/2020||Hamm v. Boockvar||Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||Ruled||Whether guidance issued by the secretary of state allowing voters who cast defective ballots to re-vote is illegal. The trial court ordered remedied ballots to be segregated pending further proceedings.|
|Pennsylvania||11/04/2020||Barnette v. Lawrence||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania||Dismissed||On November 4, 2020, 4th Congressional District candidate Kathy Barnette sued Montgomery County officials in federal district court. Barnette claimed the county's board of elections violated the state's election code by inspecting ballot envelopes for missing information, a process known as pre-canvassing, and by giving voters a chance to correct such deficiencies. Barnett also claimed that the federal equal protection clause was violated because only certain voters were allowed the chance to cure. Barnette asked the county to reject any affected ballots. On November 6, Judge Timothy Savage denied the plaintiffs' request.|
|Pennsylvania||11/12/2020||Ziccarelli v. Allegheny County Board of Elections||Pennsylvania Supreme Court; Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court; Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County||Dismissed after appeal||On November 18, 2020, the state's Court of Common Pleas denied the plaintiffs request, ordering the votes to be counted.|
On November 19, 2020, after appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the Court of Common Pleas decision and ruled that the 2,349 ballots in question should not be counted.
On November 23, 2020, after appeal, Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and affirmed the decision of the state's Court of Common Pleas reinstating the decision of the Allegheny County Board of Elections to count 2,349 ballots.
|Pennsylvania||11/03/2020||In re: Motion for Injunctive Relief of Northampton Cty. Republican Committee||Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County||Dismissed||On November 3, 2020, a group including Republican candidates and officials made an oral motion in state court, asking the court to prevent the Northampton Board of Elections from identifying cancelled ballots in order to help voters cure them; the court denied the motion|
|Pennsylvania||11/25/2020||Kelly v. Pennsylvania||Supreme Court of the United States; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court||Denied||Plaintiffs asked to stop certification of election results, challenging the legality of no-excuse mail-in ballots. Lower court granted request; Pennsylvania appealed to state's supreme Court. State Supreme Court dismissed the case.|
Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and an application for injunctive relief was filed to Justice Alito. The court "without comment" denied the case on December 8, 2020.
|Wisconsin||11/12/2020||Langenhorst v. Pecore||U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin||Dropped||Plaintiffs allege inclusion of some invalid ballots in Milwaukee, Menominee and Dane Counties results has resulted in vote-dilution disenfranchisement, and seeks to invalidate all votes from those counties before Wisconsin certifies their results.|
Voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.
|Wisconsin||11/23/2020||Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n||Wisconsin Supreme Court||Dismissed||Plaintiffs claim thousands of illegal ballots were cast and seek to stop certification of election.|
|Wisconsin||11/27/2020||Mueller v. Jacobs||Wisconsin Supreme Court||Dismissed||Plaintiffs claimed ballots collected from drop boxes are illegal and should not be counted; sought to stop certification of election.|
Court denied the petition in a 4-3 decision.
|Wisconsin||12/01/2020||Trump v. Evers||Wisconsin Supreme Court||Dismissed||Plaintiffs challenged several election practices and sought to overturn election results. The court denied hearing the petition in a 4-3 decision due to the case being filed directly in higher court whereas the case must first be filed and heard in circuit court.|
|Wisconsin||12/02/2020||Trump v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n||United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin|
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
|Dismissed with prejudice||Trump's "Electors Clause claims fail as a matter of law and fact". Additionally, Trump could have challenged the election practices before the vote occurred, but failed to do so.|
Dismissed with prejudice.
Appeals court affirmed the district court's decision.
|Wisconsin||12/07/2020||Trump v. Biden||Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County||Ruled in favor of Biden||Ruled after appeal The district court "affirmed" the certification of Wisconsin's presidential election results, because Trump and other plaintiffs failed to prove that Wisconsin violated its "early voting laws" in its recount.|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, affirmed the decision of the circuit court; the plaintiffs' claims were either "meritless" or rejected due to a delay that was "unreasonable in the extreme".
Ruled in favor of the respondents: Biden et al.
I think I got them all....