Quantifying Litigation Surrounding The Presidential Election

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Courts were involved in the 2020 election debacle like never before. Voting, a right that appears clear and self-explanatory on its face, reached a new level of complexity with various laws that placed restrictions on who can vote, how, and when.

Judges stepped in in hundreds of instances to clarify the laws that were constitutional and to strike down laws that violated the Constitution. As with any legal issue that affects the nation, judges had differential roles based on their geographic locations. This post looks at pre-election voting related litigation by analyzing the major players and the hotbeds of litigation. It also looks at where the next epicenters in voting rights litigation may be located.

Many of the voting rights cases did not lead to straightforward outcomes, and judges needed to fashion remedies that account for both the promulgated laws and the rights of individual voters. One of the most active judges in litigation, Judge Eleanor Ross from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, provided an example of balancing such interests with her opinion in Cooper v. Raffensperger. This case dealt with ballot access for third party candidates in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Georgia had a strict signature requirement in place that plaintiffs requested waived due to the pandemic. Rather than agree entirely with either side, Judge Ross reduced the signature requirement by 30% for third-party candidates. Judge Ross was one of the judges with the most pre-election cases. Below is a graph of judges that heard at least three pre-election cases along with the party of their appointing presidents (data was culled from the Brennan Center and the Healthy Elections Project).

*snip*