Will any court rule that the 2020 election was fraudulent?

Most 2020 election fraud lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds. The vast majority of legal challenges alleging widespread fraud in the 2020 election were dismissed in late 2020 or early 2021, frequently due to procedural issues or a lack of supporting evidence ^[1]. The Campaign Legal Center reported that nearly all of the approximately 60 post-election lawsuits failed, primarily citing reasons such as lack of standing, failure to state a claim, or other procedural deficiencies ^[1].

Courts found no widespread fraud, dismissing all significant cases. In the few instances where courts did assess the merits of the allegations, no evidence of widespread voter fraud was ever found ^[1]. Specific cases illustrate this trend: Feehan v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2:20-cv-01771) was dismissed with prejudice in December 2020 ^[2]. Similarly, Bowyer v. Ducey (2:20-cv-02321) in Arizona and King v. Whitmer (2:20-cv-13134) in Michigan were also dismissed in December 2020, with the latter case specifically finding no factual basis for the claims presented ^[1]. Consequently, based on available web research, there are no currently pending federal or state court cases with a procedural pathway to a merits ruling on systemic 2020 election fraud that have upcoming deadlines before mid-2025.

Most 2020 election lawsuits were dismissed due to procedural bars. Following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, at least 64 post-election lawsuits were filed across the country challenging the results ^[2]. Courts routinely dismissed these cases, with nearly all failing to overturn election outcomes ^[1]. Common reasons for dismissal included the plaintiffs' lack of standing, meaning they could not demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, and the doctrine of laches. Laches was particularly applied in cases where plaintiffs delayed challenging election laws until after the election ^[1]. For instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to mail-in ballot law on laches grounds in Kelly v. Commonwealth (2020) ^[3]. Ultimately, no court found evidence of widespread fraud that would have altered the election's outcome ^[1].

Post-2022 circuit precedents affirm strict application of procedural bars. Recent rulings in key circuits demonstrate a continued rigorous application of these procedural bars, rather than signaling a shift in their interpretation. For example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Degraffenreid (2022), affirmed the dismissal of an appeal related to mail-in ballots due to the plaintiffs' lack of standing, emphasizing a strict interpretation of injury requirements ^[4]. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Jacobson v. Fla. Sec'y of State (2020) pre-2022 also illustrated the consistent application of standing and ripeness ^[5]. These cases collectively indicate that courts in these circuits continue to strictly apply procedural doctrines like standing and laches to filter election-related challenges, ensuring litigants demonstrate a concrete injury and timely bring their claims ^[6].

Several Trump appointees could preside over future election challenges in key states. In Arizona, potential jurisdiction over future election challenges may fall to U.S. District Judges Susan Brnovich ^[1] and Michael Liburdi ^[1], as well as U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget S. Bade of the Ninth Circuit ^[1]. While numerous judges appointed by former President Donald Trump serve in the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Georgia, and the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, the available sources do not provide specific details on their rulings regarding election law or administrative deference ^[1].

Judge Porter's ruling in Pennsylvania emphasized the need for specific allegations. U.S. Circuit Judge David Porter, a Trump appointee to the Third Circuit, was part of a panel that upheld the dismissal of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar ^[1]. This non-precedential opinion stated that "The Campaign's claims have no merit... The Campaign's allegations are vague and conclusory," indicating a judicial expectation for specific factual and legal allegations in such cases ^[2].

Wisconsin's Judge Ludwig also dismissed claims lacking legal and factual merit. U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump appointee, presided over Donald J. Trump v. The Wisconsin Elections Commission, et al. ^[1]. Judge Ludwig dismissed the lawsuit in December 2020, concluding that the plaintiff's arguments "fail as a matter of law and fact." His opinion underscored the necessity for evidence-based legal reasoning and a rejection of claims without sufficient legal or factual foundation, noting the "Court must stop somewhere" in entertaining arguments ^[3]. These rulings by judges like Porter and Ludwig suggest a judicial approach that will demand rigorous evidence and specific legal arguments, rather than broad, unsubstantiated claims in future election challenges.

Ancillary legal actions have a minimal chance of proving 2020 election fraud. Prediction markets estimate a very low probability, approximately 2-3%, that an ancillary legal proceeding would result in a finding of fact that 'fraud occurred' as essential to its ultimate verdict for the 2020 election. Platforms such as Kalshi indicate this probability at roughly 3% ^[1], with Polymarket showing similar ranges between 2% and 3% across its various platforms ^[3]. This consistently low probability extends across different court types and aligns with the outcomes of direct legal challenges to the 2020 election results, where more than 60 lawsuits were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities ^[2].

Ancillary proceedings target specific acts, not the election's overall legitimacy. These legal proceedings are primarily designed to prosecute particular criminal actions or resolve defamation claims, rather than to establish overall election fraud as an essential finding for their verdicts. For instance, cases like Michigan's prosecution regarding the submission of a false slate of presidential electors or Georgia's election racketeering prosecution address charges such as forgery, conspiracy to commit forgery, false statements, and solicitation to commit election fraud ^[4]. While convictions in these contexts confirm that defendants engaged in specific fraudulent acts or attempts to subvert the electoral process, they do not necessarily imply that the 2020 election itself was fundamentally fraudulent in its outcome.

Federal courts require "extraordinary circumstances" to reopen a case or judgment. The legal standard for presenting "extraordinary new evidence" to reopen a case or overcome a final judgment in federal court is exceptionally high, typically requiring "extraordinary circumstances" ^[1]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), particularly its catchall provision of 60(b)(6), is reserved for these "extraordinary circumstances" ^[1]. For newly discovered evidence to be considered, it must generally be material, likely to produce a more favorable result, and could not have been discovered through due diligence at the time of trial ^[3]. An additional remedy, the writ of coram nobis, is an "extraordinary remedy" used to vacate judgments only where "fundamental errors of fact" existed that were unknown to the court and petitioner at trial, not for errors of law ^[4].

Evidence from 'True the Vote' has not met the high evidentiary bar. Evidence compiled by groups like 'True the Vote' and featured in films such as '2000 Mules' has not met this high evidentiary bar for admissibility and credibility in court proceedings ^[2]. For instance, in Fair Fight v. True the Vote, a federal court determined that True the Vote "failed to carry their burden of proof" regarding claims of non-citizen voting in the 2020 and 2021 elections ^[2]. The court's findings noted "significant shortcomings" in the plaintiffs' data and analysis, concluding that while True the Vote attempted to identify non-citizen voters, they could not prove that these individuals actually cast votes. Therefore, this evidence did not meet the high evidentiary bar required to substantiate claims of widespread fraud in court ^[2].