In the wake of the imminent elections, both parties are not only fighting to win the presidency at the polling stations but also in the courtrooms. This election cycle is characterized by numerous lawsuits filed by both sides.
While many of these cases are centered around disputes over state laws and will be determined by state courts, there’s a possibility of some cases ending up before the U.S. Supreme Court. However, many experts opine that the Supreme Court will attempt to refrain from election involvement.
The controversial Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000 by the Supreme Court has since cast a shadow over electoral politics with the potential of a close presidential race being decided by the court. Despite the unlikelihood of a repeat scenario, the surge in lawsuits this cycle has raised the chances of the Supreme Court being compelled to intervene again.
The Supreme Court has so far shown reluctance to intervene in the 2024 general-election cycle, largely turning down opportunities to alter the status quo. Despite partial intervention in a dispute over proof-of-citizenship requirement in Arizona, it has rejected pleas in instances such as the Green Party’s attempt to get Jill Stein on the Nevada ballot and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s appeal to be reinstated on the New York ballot.
With early voting already in progress in over thirty-six states and millions of votes already cast, the Supreme Court typically adheres to a principle from a 2006 decision. This principle urges courts to be cautious about altering election rules close to an election to avoid creating confusion among voters and election officials.
However, this doesn’t mean that the losing parties won’t petition the Supreme Court to hear their appeals, despite lower courts ruling that many of these cases were filed too late.
“Many of these challenges should have been raised much earlier. The court won’t entertain those,” opined Alan Morrison, associate dean at George Washington Law School. But in situations that couldn’t have been resolved sooner or where lower-court rulings could have significant impact, the court might be inclined to act. Allegations of voter fraud, which are typically late, could also lead to post-Election Day cases.
Following the 2020 contest, more than 60 lawsuits alleging voter fraud were filed in federal court by Trump and his GOP allies. Most of these were either rejected or withdrawn. For this cycle, the Republican National Committee has filed 130 lawsuits in 26 states ahead of the election.
As the election draws closer, nearly 200 cases are unfolding across the country, many in the battleground states that will determine the election. Some of these might end up before the Supreme Court justices.
The clash between the Justice Department and Virginia and Alabama over their efforts to remove noncitizen voters from registration rolls, the Mississippi law regarding late-arriving mail ballots, mail ballot procedures in Pennsylvania, challenges to the implementation of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act in Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, and the state of Michigan’s voter rolls are some of the cases that could potentially land before the Supreme Court.
Disaster-relief cases, arising from unpredictable emergencies such as hurricanes, constitute an exception to the rule against judicial activity before elections. States like Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia are grappling with voting access issues due to the destruction caused by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. However, no major cases appear to be headed for Supreme Court review at this stage.
The landscape of the upcoming elections is evolving rapidly, with the course of the election potentially being shaped not only by polls but also by courtrooms.
