A quick guide: Trump’s lawsuits dispute election results as presidency is called for Biden
Corrections/clarifications: In an update posted Nov. 13, this story incorrectly stated the status of a federal lawsuit in Michigan. The case, which is ongoing, alleges a number of irregularities, from the improper tabulation of votes to denying observers access to counting.
In the days after the presidential election, President Donald Trump and Republicans have filed lawsuits in New Mexico, Texas and six battleground states to contest a race Trump lost to Democratic challenger and former Vice President Joe Biden.
The most recent suit was filed in New Mexico on Dec. 14.
Judges have dismissed some of the suits but others remain, and more are possible in the coming days, including challenges to the legality of ballots or requests for recounts.
Voters in a few states independently filed their own lawsuits in support of Trump. Some of those suits have been dropped.
The Associated Press characterized the filings so far as "small-scale lawsuits that do not appear to affect many votes."
Here's a quick look at noteworthy lawsuits from Trump and the Republican party, with details by state below:
Pennsylvania
Provisional ballots for absentee voters
Who filed: Republican candidates for U.S. House and Pennsylvania state house and four voters, on Nov. 3.
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit objected to the voting process that gave provisional ballots to voters whose absentee or mail-in ballots were rejected for reasons other than disqualification.
Status: On Nov. 6, the judge denied most of the suit's claims but ordered provisional ballots to be separated and held for verification.
Observer access
Who filed: Trump campaign, on Nov. 3.
Court: Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit said observers weren't given close enough access to watch ballot counts.
Status: The suit was dismissed, but on Nov. 5 an appeals court judge said observers must have access within a distance of 6 feet. On Nov. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the suit, by a vote of 5-2.
'Fixing' ballots
Who filed: Northampton County Republican Party on Nov. 3.
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit asked that election officials be prohibited from alerting voters to incorrectly completed ballots – such as voting for two candidates in the same race – and allowing them to "fix" them.
Status: On Nov. 3, a judge denied the suit, ruling it lacked merit.
Mail-in voter identification
Who filed: Trump campaign, Republican National Committee on Nov. 4.
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit objected to an extension allowing mail-in voters to show identification, if originally missing. The deadline was extended to Nov. 12; the suit said the deadline should be Nov. 6.
Status: On Nov. 5, the court ordered the affected ballots separated and held for verification. The Republican Party of Pennsylvania then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. On Nov. 6, the Supreme Court ordered ballots to be separated and counted separately. That means the ballots could be excluded in later rulings.
On Nov. 12, a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that Pennsylvania's secretary of state "lacked statutory authority" to change the deadline and ordered the disputed ballots not to be counted. It's not yet known how many ballots the ruling affects.
Postmarks on mail-in ballots
Who filed: Republican Party of Pennsylvania on Nov. 5.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court.
Claim: The suit appealed a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allowed mail-in ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 to be accepted by Nov. 6.
Status: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case but said it may reconsider later.
Absentee ballots with incomplete information
Who filed: Trump campaign on Nov. 5.
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit asked that the board of elections in Montgomery County be barred from counting absentee ballots with incomplete information on their outer envelopes. The suit said 600 ballots were affected.
Status: Pending.
'Two-tier' voting system
Who filed: Trump campaign on Nov. 9.
Court: U.S. District Court in Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit said Pennsylvania is operating a two-tier voting system, in-person and by mail, that violates the Constitution.
Status: On Nov. 21, a federal judge rejected the campaign claim in a scathing decision, concluding that Trump lawyers had presented "strained legal arguments without merit." Trump lawyers are appealing.
Counting of absentee ballots
Who filed: Trump campaign, Republican National Committee on Nov. 9.
Court: Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit asked for a review of absentee ballot counting by the board of elections in Bucks County. It said some ballots with date or address defects were accepted.
Status: Pending.
‘No fraud or misconduct’
Who filed: In two separate suits that were later combined: the Trump campaign on Nov. 10; Nicole Ziccarelli, Republican candidate for the 45th District of the Pennsylvania state Senate, on Nov. 13.
Courts: Trump in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas; Ziccarelli in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
Claims: The Trump campaign said it was not alleging fraud or misconduct, but claimed 8,329 absentee and mail-in ballots were not correctly filled out and should not be counted by the Philadelphia County Board of Elections.
Ziccarelli did not claim fraud, but challenged an Allegheny County Board of Elections decision to count 2,349 mail-in ballots that were signed, but undated.
Status: The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas ruled against the Trump campaign. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County ruled against Ziccarelli, but the three-judge Commonwealth Court panel reversed the decision 2-1.
Both suits were appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which consolidated them into a single case on Nov. 20.
In a 5-2 decision on Nov. 23, the state Supreme Court ruled against Trump by upholding the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas decision. It also ruled against Ziccarelli by reversing the Commonwealth Court decision.
‘Mail-in voting expansion was illegal’
Who filed: Rep. Mike Kelly (R-16th District), Republican candidate Sean Parnell, and six other Republicans, on Nov. 21.
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Claim: The suit said that Pennsylvania's expansion of mail-in voting process, established in 2019, was unconstitutional.
Status: The Commonwealth Court temporarily halted the state from certifying election results. On Nov. 28, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Middle District vacated the ruling and dismissed the suit. On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal.
Michigan
Access for vote counting
Who filed: Trump campaign on Nov. 4.
Court: State of Michigan Court of Claims.
Claim: The suit asked for a halt to vote counting until the Trump campaign was given “meaningful access." It did not specify a voting location. It also sought permission for the campaign to review previously counted ballots and sought access to videotapes of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1.
The campaign also submitted an affidavit from Jessica Connarn, a lawyer serving as a poll watcher, who said an unidentified poll worker told her ballot dates were being changed.
Status: On Nov. 5, a Michigan judge dismissed the suit and said there was no legal basis for access to surveillance videos and the poll worker's affidavit was hearsay. The Trump campaign has appealed.
Challengers not permitted to observe vote processing
Who filed: Trump campaign on Nov. 11.
Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan.
Claim: The suit said election challengers – representatives of political parties, candidates or organizations – were not permitted to observe election proceedings and processing of voter ballots.
Status: Pending. Filings are due this week.
Georgia
53 ballots questioned as improperly counted
Who filed: Trump campaign, Georgia Republican Party on Nov. 4.
Court: Superior Court of Chatham County, State of Georgia.
Claim: The suit said 53 ballots received after the voting deadline may have been added to eligible ballots and improperly counted.
Status: On Nov. 5, a judge dismissed the case, ruling there was no evidence the law had been broken. However, Georgia officials said Nov. 11 that all ballots would be recounted by hand because of the close margin.
On Dec. 7, officials recertified Biden’s election victory after a second recount reaffirmed the Democrat won the state and its 16 electoral votes.
Arizona
Sharpie marker use disputed
Who filed: Trump campaign, voters in Maricopa County, Arizona, on Nov. 4.
Court: Superior Court for the State of Arizona.
Claim: The suit said Maricopa County incorrectly rejected some in-person votes on Election Day. Plaintiffs said voters were given Sharpie markers to mark their ballots, which spoiled them, a claim that was later disputed. Election officials said Sharpies were used because they dry fast and don't smear.
Status: The Trump campaign filed its own suit on Nov. 7, but later that same day, attorneys dropped the legal challenge without prejudice, meaning a similar case could be filed later.
In-person ballots rejected
Who filed: Trump campaign, Republican National Committee, Arizona Republican Party on Nov. 7.
Court: Superior Court for the State of Arizona.
Claim: The suit said Maricopa County incorrectly rejected in-person ballots when vote tabulation machines flagged some ballots as defective. The suit said poll workers did not follow procedures to give voters a chance to correct mistakes on ballots.
Status: The Trump campaign dropped the suit on Nov. 12.
Vote centers instead of vote precincts
Who filed: Arizona Republican Party, on Nov. 13.
Court: Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa.
Claim: The suit, filed against the Maricopa County board of supervisors and county recorder, disputes the ability of counties to hand-count ballots by vote centers instead of vote precincts. The random counting comes after the unofficial vote total has been made public and acts as a quality check of voting machines.
Status: Pending. The Arizona attorney general said there is no legal basis for the claim.
Fate of two ballots questioned
Who filed: Case brought by a Phoenix couple who challenged in-person voting process on Election Day.
Court: Superior Court of Maricopa County
Claim: One voter alleges that ballot was not properly recorded, while the other claims that the tabulation process failed during processing of the vote.
Status: Judge dismissed the case Nov. 20 following a day-long hearing.
Ballot verification process questioned
Who filed: Kelli Ward, Republican chair for Arizona, on Nov. 24.
Court: Superior Court of Maricopa County
Claim: The suit asked the court to void Biden's victory of 10,457 votes. It questioned the signature verification for mail-in votes and the duplication process election officials used to count ballots that tabulations machines could not read.
Status: On Dec. 4, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge rejected the suit. On Dec. 8, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's decision.
Wisconsin
Trump seeks recount in two counties
Who: Trump campaign on Nov. 18.
Claim: The campaign is seeking a recount in Dane and Milwaukee counties – the most populous and liberal counties in the state – in an effort to overturn election results in Trump's favor.
So far, the campaign has paid the state $3 million to start a partial recount, which would have to be completed by Dec. 1.
Status: Both counties completed their recounts by Nov. 29, increasing Biden's margin of victory by 87 votes. Trump said he would sue to overturn the results. On Dec. 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 against Trump, saying one of his arguments was without merit and that others were brought too late.
'Speculation and conjecture'
Who filed: Sidney Powell, a conservative lawyer and Trump supporter, on Dec. 1.
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Claim: The suit claimed election fraud was used to manipulate the vote count "to manufacture an election of Joe Biden." It sought to overturn Wisconsin’s presidential election results.
Status: Derrick Van Orden, a Republican candidate for Congress, said his name was used without permission as a plaintiff in the suit. On Dec. 7, a federal judge ruled that the suit was "nothing but speculation and conjecture" and denied it.
Nevada
Later hours for voting locations
Who filed: Trump campaign, Nevada Republican Party on Nov. 3.
Court: District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
Claim: The suit said asked that voting locations affected by voting machine malfunctions be kept open until 8 p.m.
Status: Select polling places in Clark County were ordered to remain open until 8 p.m.
3,000 voters questioned as ineligible
Who filed: Jill Stokke, Chris Prudhome and the campaigns of Republican politicians Jim Marchant and Daniel Rodimer on Nov. 5.
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.
Claim: The suit said more than 3,000 ineligible voters cast ballots in Clark County and asked that the county be prohibited from using machines to verify signatures.
Plaintiffs included Stokke, 79, a Las Vegas voter who is blind, who said she believes her ballot was stolen when she went to vote in person and was told she had already voted by mail, and Prudhome, who identifies himself as a Fox News commentator. He said he was denied access while trying to observe ballot counting.
Status: On Nov. 6, a federal judge denied an emergency injunction but briefs on the complaint are due on Nov. 19.
GOP alleges "fraud and irregularities"
Who filed: Nevada Republican Party on Nov. 17.
Court: First Judicial District Court, Carson City, Nevada.
Claim: The suit questions the integrity of the state's general election and asks that Trump either be named the winner or that results be nullified with no winner certified.
Status: Pending.
Texas
Who filed: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, on Dec. 8.
Court: U.S. Supreme Court.
Claim: Paxton asked the court to prevent four battleground states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin – from certifying Biden's win when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14 to formally cast votes for the next president.
Paxton claimed state officials used the coronavirus pandemic to unconstitutionally change voting rules for the election.
Officials in 17 states that Trump won – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia filed an amicus curiae brief on Dec. 9 in support of Paxton's request.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, filed a separate brief on Dec. 9 supporting the claim.
Status: On Dec. 11, the Supreme Court, in a brief order, denied the challenge by Texas and dismissed all related claims as moot.
New Mexico
Who filed: Trump campaign, on Dec. 14, the same day New Mexico electors cast their five Electoral College votes for Biden.
Court: U.S. District Court in New Mexico.
Claim: The suit claims that the New Mexico secretary of state violated election rules by permitting voters to deposit completed absentee ballots in drop boxes at voting locations instead of personally handing them to the location's presiding judge. It asks the court to delay certification of New Mexico's electoral vote and mandate a statewide canvass of New Mexico's absentee ballots, including investigations into voting locations where drop boxes were used.
Status: Pending.
SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; The Associated Press; National Conference of State Legislatures; Politico; ProPublica; Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Guide to Trump election result lawsuits in 6 battleground states
