Talk:Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election

Case Status ACCURACY and Color Coding

The color coding is a nice addition, however, they do not accurately reflect case status and many of the case statuses are wrong. For starters, there is no such thing as a case being "rejected" (in that example the case was settled and should be reflected as such).

Secondly, the biggest issues here (and there are many entries on this table guilty of this error), there is NO SUCH THING as a case being "DENIED". In each entry, whomever added the content is referring to a media article that inaccurately states this, but that that is inconsistent with the actual law. Rather what they are referring to is a motion on a case, and not the case itself. Motions are filed constantly on cases and the rulings either granting or denying these motions have to do with case activity, NOT the case itself. For example, Stokke et al v. Cegavske et al, this is listed as DENIED, however, there are several motions that were denied, including one filed by the DNC. This is not the case itself. The motion in this case was related to a Preliminary Injunction and a Restraining Order, but this is NOT a ruling on this case.

Third, we have status currently of Ongoing, Rejected, Denied, Dismissed, Dropped, and Ruled where they are color coded yellow, red, red, red, blue, and green respectively. Rejected should not be a status, neither should Denied for reasons explained above. The one case listed as Rejected should read Settled or Dropped and perhaps should be blue.

"Ruled" should actually be "Disposed", however, I think this Ruled is fine sine it's easier to read.

Dismissed should be placed in two separate categories, either Dismissed with prejudice or Dismissed without prejudice. "Dismissed with prejudice" should be RED and "Dismissed without prejudice" should be YELLOW or if used in a settled or dropped case, GREEN. This is because a case dismissed without prejudice is NOT closed, it is not good for either the plaintiff or the defendant as it does not have to be appealed for further action and can be heard again with additional or corrected evidence. Cases dismissed with prejudice are closed and would have to be appealed to a higher court, these are the only ones that should be red.

Typically a case dismissed (without prejudice) means the case was settled, dropped, or set aside, but with either side alloted the opportunity to gather additional evidence. Ether side can still file into the case or file additional lawsuits regarding the allegation. NOTE: Be careful when adding dismissed at all for that reason in part, but moreover, if dismissed at all, it is important to double check for a disposition which would really mean "Ruled". If there IS a dismissal with prejudice, then that means the judge threw out the case and it will not be heard. It is unlikely there would be many of these, if any at all. Most importantly, these are all part of public record, is very easy to see what the status is or if there is any recent activity on the case.

The coloring and wording are merely suggestions to discuss, however, some of these (such as those listed as denied, which is the biggest issue) require immediate attention. I did fix a couple of them, but don't have time to go through them all in a timely manner. OnePercent (talk) 1:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Case Details Error

I think someone mistakenly added information about Pearson case under Wood v Raffsensperger. The documents in the footnotes at the end of the Woodcase details actually bring up documents styled to the Pearson case. Or am I missing something where they were joined together?

"... falsely asserted widespread election fraud"

"Trump, his supporters, and his attorneys falsely asserted widespread election fraud in public statements..." The word "falsely" has been removed three separate times (Nov 25, Nov 29, Dec 7) by users who did not provide edit summaries. Even though WP:3RR specifies "within a 24-hour period", I don't want to re-insert the word "falsely" another time without soliciting consensus. Plenty of WP:RSs unequivocally consider assertions of widespread election fraud false. Uncritically repeating these false assertions is giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Six RSs support the word "falsely", including the NYT, AP, ABC News, Politifact, New Yorker, and BuzzFeed News, all of which are considered "Generally Reliable" in WP:RSP. If there's substantial disagreement, I'm happy to open an RFC: "Should the lead section of the article describe Trump's assertions of election fraud as false, or not?"-Ich (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ich: A note, the link you provided for the December 7 revision linked to the November 29 revision; I corrected it. Also, it looks like in the November 29 revision, Indubioush wrote "Reduce left-wing bias" in the edit summary when removing the word "falsely." This was the only edit summary provided when removing the word "falsely". In any case, last time no reason was given for removing the word so I added it back. Wdougs (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Correction, OnePercent wrote an edit summary for the December 7 revision, but did not address the removal of "falsely." ("Removed "on his behalf" from opening sentence since this is inaccurate and only an attorney can file a lawsuit on an entity's unless it's an immediate family member or in class action lawsuits. Secondly, the filing entity is a legal entity, not a person RE: "his") Wdougs (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Wdougs Thanks for fixing the link. The edit summary by OnePercent was from the edit preceding 2603:8080:ac40:1b7:d460:3199:32f5:bc44. (The diff pages show both the previous and current edit summary; it's easy to misread.) OnePercent didn't remove the "falsely", that was our IP colleague.-Ich (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ich Oh I see, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. Wdougs (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you NEED the word "falsely"? Isn't it enough to state the fact that people asserted election fraud and then follow by a statement of a balancing fact, that many other people consider these assertions to be false? You still get to list the references. That is an edit that I would recommend: remove the word "falsely" and change to something like "Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters asserted widespread election fraud in public statements, assertions considered to be false by Trump critics [11]..."

It's clear that YOU think the assertions are false, but many other people are not convinced that they are false.

BTW, people were not usually asserting "widespread election fraud." Indeed, it is probably reasonable to say that significant widespread fraud did not happen in 2020 and I think many "election deniers" would agree. What people were asserting was specific cases of election fraud - indeed, election fraud in the big cities in five states (WI, PA, Az, GA and MI) amounting to fewer than 50,000 votes - enough to swing a close election from one candidate to the other in 2020. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The claims are factually false, as has been extensively documented by mainstream reliable sources. There was no "election fraud in the big cities in five states." That delusional cultists believe otherwise is not relevant to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you be careful of your remarks and do not defame others by calling them "delusional cultists". As to the "mainstream reliable sources" you mentioned, please know that many of them are known to be anti-Trump and are not unbiased. Matt Smith (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

People who believe the 2020 election was "stolen" are delusional cultists. I'm happy to repeat it. That reliable sources are, you purport, "anti-Trump," is not relevant. Reliable sources are also generally "anti-Hitler" and "anti-Putin." Your disagreement with the reliable sources' statements is not relevant and we do not discount reliable sources bexsuse you believe they are biased. A bias toward the truth, as supported by facts and evidence, is a correct bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please know that, on Wikipedia, you can rationally express that you disagree with an opinion; but you are not allowed to be uncivil or do personal attacks because those conducts are in violation of the WP:Etiquette behavioral guideline and the WP:No personal attacks policy, respectively.

Also, I don't think a bias which lacks the support of facts and evidence can be called a correct bias. Matt Smith (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I can actually refute the claims of “secure election” based on principle alone. You also said the lawsuits were dismissed on lack of evidence, when 57 of 60 were dismissed on standing and never made it to the evidentiary phase. Of the 3 remaining, Trump won 2 on merit and lost 1. All you’ve done is parrot the mainstream media sources. As a Director if Information Security, I ask you to research the principles of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. You will find the election was by no means secure and broke the laws. 16 states in 2020 did not require any form of voter identification and thereby violated the principle of Confidentiality as it relates to Authentication. Educated “cultist” here. 162.193.133.30 (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for "...57 of 60 were dismissed on standing and never made it to the evidentiary phase"? Also which article makes a claim of "secure election"? Thanks. Faolin42 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the table of results itself that only a few were ruled upon, the majority were settled, withdrawn and dismissed. The "source" is this very page. Claims that it "lacks evidence" are based on processes that are designed to be evidence-free. Drop boxes cannot be secure, cannot provide said "evidence" and violate voter privacy laws in many states. 108.185.169.221 (talk) 108.185.169.221 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Table "Total count of post-election lawsuits" has bad arithmetic

The total column for Pennsylvania says 13, but the numbers to the lefty add up to 12. I don't know if the numbers to the left are wrong, or if the total is wrong.

Similarly, the "Ruled (for)" column has a 1 for Wisconsin, and no other non-zero numbers, yet the column total is 2. Again, I don't know which is wrong.

Finally, the grand total shows 56, but if the row and column errors mentioned above result in changes to the row and column totals, then the grand total should be 55. Rbandes (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2023

In § Michigan Welfare Rights Org. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., change "plaintifss" to "plaintiffs". 2602:FC24:13:1:E4F7:9065:0:1 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

updating content & creating a new page for the DC suits

The page is out of date, at least when it comes to identifying the many cases in DC and briefly describing their status. Also, the section on the DC suits, Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election#District of Columbia, says "Main article: 2020 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia," but that page has nothing about any lawsuits. If the "Main article" link were to parallel those for the states, it would link to a page titled "Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from the District of Columbia." But such a page is currently non-existent. I'm not an experienced enough editor to create that page, but I'd be happy to work on it with someone. Does anyone want to do this? Also, it's currently unclear to me how much detail to include on that page (to be created) vs. this page vs. Aftermath of the January 6 United States Capitol attack#Lawsuits (which says to see this page as the Main article). My sense is that those 3 pages are in order of decreasing detail for the DC cases, but right now, the last has more detail than this one for the DC suits. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I've been adding to the table of ongoing lawsuits. I'm interpreting lawsuits linked to the January 6, 2021, insurrection as falling in the category of "related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election," since the insurrection aimed to stop certification of the Electoral College vote certification, and because Thompson v. Trump et al. was already listed as an ongoing case, and it arose out of the events on 1/6/21. If anyone disagrees with that interpretation, please say, especially if you can link to a better page where you think such cases would be addressed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lost?

The opening paragraph declares "filed and lost 62 lawsuits" - the word "lost" here is subjective and suggests (unintended) political bias.

Per the article, some cases were Dropped (so never heard in a courtroom), Dismissed (also never heard in a courtroom) so declaring these cases 'lost' is disingenuous and technically untrue. In fact, as stated, 5 have been ruled against and 1 ruled in favor for the plaintiff.

If Wikipedia wants to remain unbiased, this content should be edited. Billd9782 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted "and lost," since the dropped cases weren't lost. But many of the cases were dismissed on the merits, and I think it's correct to say that the plaintiff(s) lost those cases. It may even be correct to say that a dismissed case was lost due to lack of standing or some other procedural issue. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, without context and detail of each individual case whether a dismissed case signifies a loss depends heavily on the circumstances.

Many of the cases were labeled frivolous cases that some argued never should have seen the light of day, let alone been put before or reviewed by a judge. But this isn't an isolated circumstance and one could argue that its a standard legal practice used by lawyers everyday - i.e. try it and see if it sticks, maybe you can get a sympathetic judge or hearing for your case.

However, assuming they are all "losses" remains incorrect and leans to negative bias - it inflates the count(s). Billd9782 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)