Our Work

Following the 2024 election, we updated our survey of election-related lawsuits to help understand the role of litigation in our elections. This update underscores key themes from our survey of litigation from 2018 to 2022: litigants continue to file election suits at high rates, primarily in state courts, and most often presenting claims related to election administration and the mechanics of voting.

"It’s been four years since the 2020 election upended American politics, when former President Donald Trump falsely claimed massive voter fraud led to his defeat, culminating in efforts to overturn the results and, ultimately, a deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. Since then, there has been a notable loss of trust in the electoral process among some voters and a surge of legal challenges. But there have been relatively few changes to how Wisconsin actually administers elections."

"Two lawsuits seeking last-minute changes to Wisconsin’s voter registration list are working their way through the courts just three weeks ahead of the presidential election. They allege voter rolls contain more than 100,000 registrations 'that appear to be invalid' and election officials could switch a voter’s status through 'malfeasance.'"

This Essay identifies several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies. These considerations—Purcell principles for state courts—aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted. The Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts U.S. Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.

This Article explores the role of standing doctrine in the future of state-court election litigation. Building on existing state practices and state constitutional principles, we defend a presumptively broad approach to state-court standing in election law cases, which we term simply election standing. We find that most state courts already relax standing to some extent in election cases—an approach that reflects both the flexible power of state courts and state constitutions’ commitment to democracy. State courts may be the best (and only) fora able to resolve pressing election-related disputes, and in turn to foster certainty, finality, and confidence in election outcomes.

"As President Joe Biden and Donald Trump step up their campaigning in swing states, a quieter battle is taking place in the shadows of their White House rematch. The Republican National Committee, newly reconstituted under Trump, has filed election-related lawsuits in nearly half the states. Recent lawsuits over voter roll maintenance in Michigan and Nevada are part of a larger strategy targeting various aspects of voting and election administration."

"Political groups — some backed by anonymous donors — are launching so many lawsuits over voting rules this year, observers expect that they could approach the record set during the rancorous 2020 election amid Covid and bogus claims of fraud. The Democratic and Republican parties collectively have raised about $41.3 million to spend on such court fights since last year. And nonprofits, including some so-called dark money groups, have likely raised as much as hundreds of millions more."

"Elections used to be about winning the hearts and minds of voters. These days, they’re increasingly about winning over judges. Courts have become heavily involved in the administration of Wisconsin elections, something that will continue to play out in a Dane County courtroom on Tuesday."

In recent years, litigation has routinely accompanied elections. To better understand developments in election litigation, we recently completed a survey of election-related lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

This year, our research shows a significant uptick of those lawsuits occurring in the state court system and challenging every step of the election process — from whether candidates or ballot initiatives qualify to appear on the ballot, to what address information must be completed in order to accept mailed ballots. It also extends to specific procedures for county clerks or poll watchers as voting occurs.