Outcomes of the 92 Election Cases from the 2020 Election Reveal That Judges Didn’t Review Evidence or Address Election Fraud, Part 2

The Arizona Sun Times examined the outcomes of the 92 election cases challenging illegalities in the 2020 election and determined that contrary to reports in the mainstream media, almost all of the judges did not consider evidence of election fraud.

This was in large part because the lawsuits didn’t allege election fraud, which is a very specific crime that usually requires a lot of discovery. Lawsuits challenging election outcomes generally cite other laws that are broken, which has long been considered sufficient to overturn elections. Judges issued their rulings in the 2020 cases without getting into the evidence or much discovery.

Most of the 92 cases involved challenges to illegal actions taken by election officials, which the judges dismissed by invoking technical reasons such as lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, laches — which means brought too late, moot, or not ripe. A few of the judges who considered the lawsuits issued diametrically opposed rulings to others who handled very similar cases, finding that none of those technical reasons applied to bar the lawsuits.

Of the few cases where the plaintiffs wanted the courts to consider evidence of election fraud, judges found various ways to avoid it.

In Donald J. Trump for President Inc. v. Hobbs, the Donald Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, and the Arizona Republican Party sued the Arizona Secretary of State on behalf of voters who were told by election workers to submit their ballots to the tabulators even though there were facial irregularities caused by Sharpies markers known as “overvotes.” They asked for an injunction prohibiting canvassing until these overvotes could be reviewed and adjudicated.

Read the rest of the article at The Arizona Sun Times
Subscribe to email updates from the Arizona Sun Times

Georgia Election Fraud by is licensed under