The Democrats and their comrades in the fake news constantly claim that since there wasn’t widespread fraud proven in elections, courts don’t have to do anything about election lawsuits. However, that was never the standard in the law prior to 2020, when judges often overturned elections for small glitches. After 2020, I believe many election lawsuits were assigned to judges who would come up with creative ways to avoid using the correct standard, such as claiming laches or standing-barred lawsuits. In Arizona, for example, almost every election lawsuit assigned since 2020 has gone to one of these judges, despite the fact that there were many conservatives on the bench, having been appointed Republican governors for years.
Fortunately, there have been a handful of honest judges since 2020 who applied the correct standard. Iowa District Court Judge Patrick A. Tott went over the standard extensively in his opinion on an election lawsuit in 2020. Republicans sued Woodbury County for sending out 56,000 ballot absentee request forms (ABRs) with the voters’ information already preprinted on them. Filling in this information in advance violated the law. The county auditor argued that sending the voters a notice that the request forms were sent in violation of law and could not be used would cost extra money, and claimed that the GOP did not have standing to sue.
A typical election judge after 2020 would have rubber-stamped the auditor’s position. Not Tott. He had no problem finding the GOP had standing to bring election lawsuits. “The Plaintiffs clearly have an interest in the manner in which absentee ballots are handled far beyond the interests of a regular citizen,” he said. “The Plaintiffs have a direct interest in seeking that a uniform election system is in place and that established election rules and laws are complied with.”
He said fraud is not the standard — much less widespread fraud. “What the Defendants want the Plaintiffs to be required to do is to prove that fraud has already occurred before they can establish their injury.” Tott explained the reasoning why fraud is not the standard, especially for mail-in ballots. “From a practical perspective, once fraud has occurred it will already likely be too late,” he said. “While the Defendants claim that voter fraud with absentee ballots is almost nonexistent, it is also the type of fraud that is almost impossible to detect.”
Tott said the pre-populated forms would encourage fraud. “Sending out ABR’s with all the information that a person that intends to commit fraud would need certainly does not limit the likelihood of fraud taking place, but would likely help to facilitate it.” This was enough to show that the GOP would “suffer injury and irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued.”
He weighed the harm it would cause to voters who had to request new ballots against the harm it could cause by violating the law and facilitating election fraud. “If the integrity of the election is thrown into question, certainly the value of each individual voter’s vote is thrown into question as well,” Tott concluded.
Iowa District Court Judge Ian K. Thornhill issued a similar ruling in another county. He said the GOP had standing to sue “as entities with involvement and interests in the outcome of the November 2020 general election, including with respect to voter registration and mobilization and having representatives of their political party on the ballot.” He refused to kick the can down the road. “Plaintiffs also have no other adequate legal remedy, because a damages award at a later stage of litigation will do nothing to remedy the potential violation of Iowa law by Defendant,” Thornhill said.
Two judges on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2020 that accepting late ballots after Election Day in Minnesota violated the law. Justices Bobby E. Shepherd and L. Steven Grasz said that the two plaintiffs had standing since they were registered voters and nominees of the Republican Party to be presidential electors — the lower district court had claimed they didn’t have standing.
The two justices said “the extension of the deadline likely violates Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution because the Secretary extended the deadline for receipt of ballots without legislative authorization. … There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.” The justices went on, “The precedent it would set to allow an executive branch official to negate the duly-enacted election laws of a state as they pertain to a presidential election is toxic to the concepts of the rule of law and fair elections.” They cited the 2000 case Bush v. Gore: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality … threaten[s] irreparable harm.” There was not even a mention of showing fraud.
There are several more cases like this, proving the 65 Project is falsely named. Judges used to overturn elections prior to 2020 due to small glitches. Now, they overturn them if it favors the Left. In a Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board election in 2024, a judge ordered a redo of the election because Maricopa County had used an incorrect ballot format that violated a Voting Rights Act consent decree meant to protect minority voting strength.
It has never been the requirement in law to prove fraud before bringing an election lawsuit. That’s frankly what lawsuits are for: to conduct discovery and a trial which will reveal whether there is fraud. It is akin to stating that in order to prosecute a murderer, you have to prove the person committed the murder before you can bring charges.
Democrats cleverly pounced on using fraud as the standard, since it requires a culpable mental state of intent. This is very difficult to prove, since defendants can always claim it was a glitch — how can you get in their head before you even file a lawsuit to prove this? To lawyers who know the law, the deep state’s claim that the standard is “widespread fraud” is embarrassing.