This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Having a timeline would be nice, for historical purposes. Please comment here if you think this is a good/bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72B0:F600:4C2B:74DD:1FEF:19A3 ( talk) 08:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Mean while in Georgia over 5000 ‘lost’ Trump votes where found during the recount. No explanation was given." -- The explanation is known. 2 counties reported problems. Floyd county found 2600 votes in a box that weren't counted. Fayette county found 2755 votes on a memory card that were never uploaded. https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-recount-uncovers-2600-new-votes-in-presidential-race/I75NSPYYGNF43HQZBPYKJWJ5MA/ https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/2755-uncounted-votes-found-on-memory-card-in-fayette-county-officials-say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.110.91 ( talk) 06:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It's really hard to parse the "Ruled" lawsuits at a glance to determine if it was in favor of either party. Might I suggest an 'in favor of' column for the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a report on Krebs' reaction to Guilani's election fraud allegation. Worth an add? https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/526764-ousted-cyber-official-giuliani-press-conference-most-dangerous-1hr-45min Bobby fletcher ( talk) 02:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just read through this article and I wanted to say "well-done" to all concerned. It has been kept factual and NPOV, an admittedly difficult task in the current climate. Manning ( talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the typos in the filling documents should be omitted from this article. Typos in the fillings really doesn't affect the validity of the accusations (or the lack thereof). Perhaps the numerous typos could reflect sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the part of Trump's legal team, but I can't see how they could significantly impact the outcome of these lawsuits. It just seems like a petty "Grammar Nazi" type nitpick to me, and reeks of the editor throwing around their personal opinions. Unless it could proven that the typos have a discernible influence on the lawsuits, I would leave them out of this page. If don't agree with me on this, feel free to add your differing views here. Randomuser335S ( talk) 02:45, 28 November 2020
== Organize this article differently? == It is being widely reported that the SCOtUS has agreed to review 5 separate law suites involving charges of election fraud on February 19, 2021. This review will determine their interest in further hearing any or all of these cases. Any fruther hearing by the court would then be held in October 2021.[Search domain americanmilitarynews.com/2021/02/supreme-court-to-decide-if-two-trump-election-fraud-cases-can-proceed-this-month/] I'm not a a lawyer but a media professional, and I would think that any legitimate news or reporting entity, including Wikipedia, would do well to reconsider and possibly revise the words like baseless and without merit with reference to all charges made by Republicans with regard to election fraud - unless they have personally conducted a review of the evidence and made that judgement.. h Lewis 2-7-21
It seems that this article is meant to compile all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election, but also describes and summarizes information about the topic and each case. There are hundreds of these lawsuits, and it is quite the undertaking to document each one. According to a USA Today analysis, “[i]n all, more than 230 election-related federal lawsuits were filed from Jan. 1 to Oct. 23, higher than any of the past three presidential election years during the same time period.” [1] According to Reuters, “[m]ore than 300 lawsuits have been filed in 44 states about the Nov. 3 election.” [2] And this doesn’t even include lawsuits filed post-election. More, there are already sites dedicated to tracking this, as listed in the article, by the Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy Docket, the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, and SCOTUSblog. Do we need to duplicate those efforts? After editing the page for a few days, I wonder if this article is casting the net too wide? Would readers be better served by a different approach to summarizing accepted information on this topic? Wdougs ( talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this a Wisconsin case? Raffensperger is the Sec of State for Georgia. JuliettPapaGolf ( talk) 01:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Does this court document [3] indicate the case has been dismissed? Ptousig ( talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How about adding a one sentence summary at the top of the Summary of post-election lawsuits? Maybe stating ## cases dismissed, ## cases dropped, ## cases ruled for the plaintiff, ## cases ruled for the defendant, ## cases ongoing, etc. GoingBatty ( talk) 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Referencing actual lawsuits with actual sworn witnesses would be counterproductive to the narrative that it’s all a crazy right-wing conspiracy with zero evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuizo ( talk • contribs)
This has been appealed. See here. Though I'm not in a position to mess with the fancy table. GMG talk 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wondering if it would be useful to provide a link for each case in the table, to its associated page on a docket tracker. Since many seem to already have links to Court Listener, I'd probably start with this one and go from there. But since such a large addition of links from one site might irk some editors the wrong way, I thought I'd ask for feedback here before doing it. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The initial filing may be read here. It is an appeal regarding In re November 3, 2020 General Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020 General Election. I have corrected the name in the article. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 03:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
I've seen multiple sources state that Wisconsin missed safe harbor, such as this one. I've heard Judge Ludwig said so on Dec. 10. That was a seven-hour hearing (with recesses) and there's no PDF for Courtlistener for that hearing. Renard Migrant ( talk) 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
New Mexico case filed today, not of any significance though, not sure if it should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:C200:7E7C:D66:E4DD:8372:5F9C ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Legal analysis by an expert, in regards to Rule 11 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/trump-lose-frivolous-election-lawsuits.html It may be of relevance for the coverage here. IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Wdougs: I think its about time to split these pages even further to each individual state. I've been doing some extensive additions to the pre-election webpage in regards to Pennsylvania. I definitely have more to add there but now that I'm moving on to the post-election lawsuits for Pennsylvania the page is getting a bit too cumbersome and wieldy to make any meaningful addition while also providing a timeline of events. Furthermore, I think separating these into individual states and allowing the current pages to remain as an overall summary of the collective state litigation and whatever rises up to above state level into the Circuit Courts/Supreme Court will definitely help the organization of the content. TheBigRedTank ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this newest lawsuit would fall. [ link] The plaintiffs include a U.S. House Rep from Texas and the head of Arizona's GOP; it's filed against Pence, in a federal court in Texas, and is seeking to have a law passed in 1887 ruled unconstitutional. Anyone have suggestions? -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 21:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Pence has responded, so the suppositions by @ Arglebargle79: seem to be moot. [6] IHateAccounts ( talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to make some of the content more NPOV and keep getting my changes reverted without comment (currently the thing considered an edit war). I worry it can be misleading to describe the accusations of voting corruption as hands down false, and I reviewed some citations and they didn't mention that these things were false, simply that they were discarded and basically very overblown. There is actual small voting corrupting that people are working hard to fight, and Trump's attempts to yell about made up corruption everywhere could harm that fight. Here my edits were marked as POVPUSH without any additional comment and reverted without any comment at all. I'm not a big participant in wikipedia, and usually don't get into conflicts when I do edit it, and I'm not sure how to pursue this further. I think it is incredibly important we stick to what is clearly true, rather than pushing various sides, in situations like these, or the truth can get covered up by the big thing of the day, which presently is either no voting fraud or immense voting fraud, with no middle ground for the reality where people supporting both parties engage in a small amount of probably balanced fraud. 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:5515 ( talk) 17:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely asserted widespread election fraud...to your suggestion of the far less-succinct,
Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters have been widely refuted in their assertions of widespread election fraud...-- Pinchme123 ( talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Request correct "partial dissent" to "Statement of Justice Alito" The current article wording is incorrect, no dissent or partial dissent was filed by Justices Alito or Thomas. "Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, then partially dissented:"
Per the Supreme Court source document a statement was made, not a partial dissent, the correct legal wording is important, Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.236.192 ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
At the time of this writing, the "unresolved cases" table of the "Counts" section has eight cases listed. Six of these cases have yet to exhaust their appeals and two of these cases have ongoing trials (MWRO v. DJT in DC and DJT v. Boockvar in PA). The table listing the "total counts" directly above that, however, does not match those numbers. The "total counts" table lists three ongoing trials. Of those supposed three ongoing trials, one is in PA (matching DJT v. Boockvar) and two are in "other" jurisdictions (MWRO v. DJT meets this description).
Is there another ongoing case (in an "other" jurisdiction) that is not listed in the "ongoing cases" table, and, if so, should it be added to that table? If not, it seems the count of ongoing trials in the "total counts" table should be reduced to two. So many cases have come and gone that I'd prefer to not presume that my own memory of the count is correct. 2600:1700:68D0:6F10:B41E:DE34:A191:58E7 ( talk) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi Wiki Editors! Long time donor, first time suggestor. :)
This is an important page for our country. I was about to create a page like this myself, which would be an unbiased summary of all the court cases, and it seems you have made incredible progress here. It is missing some important information: 1. Name of Judge 2. Political affiliation 3. Trump appointee? (Y/N) 4. The total number of cases. It's missing a bunch. It's hard to keep up I"m sure. I heard there were 61 total thus far. I've seen articles that say "over 50", but it is surprisingly hard to find an accurate, unbiased, summary of all of them. This seems right in Wikipedia's wheelhouse!
Ideally there would be links to view the transcripts of these cases. I don't like excerpts from transcripts because they can be biased or viewed as biased, so maybe a link to the transcript and the identify where there is interesting testimony, so everyone can see the context.
Thank you for your contributions on this so far. I think this page could really help everyone understand the honest state of these cases based on filings and transcripts - vs seeing a summary from some reporter. BigDaddyWarbuck ( talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something but I don't see the Davis lawsuits listed.
To quote Mr. Davis, "This is not a Sidney Powell lawsuit. This is not a Rudy Giuliani lawsuit. This is not a Lin Wood lawsuit." No. It's way crazier even than those lawsuits. Way way crazier. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I found this added by an editor named: User:MickTravis_If
If it isn't clear, let me state this is absolutely NOT my personal comment. I've added it here to start a discussion. I have also dropped a warning on the users talk page. Timmccloud ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There have been many iterations of Wikipedia attempting to catalog litigation related to the 2020 US elections. This is fine, and has mostly been due to the situation changing over time. For example, there was originally one article containing all lawsuits pre- and post-election, but this became unwieldy as more and more lawsuits were filed. Then the offshoot post-election litigation article became unwieldy itself due to size, resulting in the creation of state-specific post-election litigation articles.
As I said, this is fine on its own, but I think it has led to a situation in which it's not clear to me why some lawsuits are tabulated and summarized in this article, as opposed to being only detailed in the relevant state article, or if there is supposed to be some overlap, etc. Unless I have missed something, there is no sentence in this article saying something like: "This specific article catalogs lawsuits which meet the criteria [X,Y,Z]. Further details about lawsuits in a specific state can be found linked in each state's section of this article."
One sign of the lack of clarity here is that as the article stands now, not all the cases given text summaries in the subheaders are given full entries in the summary table and vice versa. 'DJTfP v. Boockvar et al.', 'DJTfP v. Oliver et al.', and 'Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin' are given text summaries in the body of this article, but are not given rows in the 'Summary' table. Two of those cases are also from states with their own litigation articles. Is there a reason that those cases are included in this article instead of the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin articles? Conversely, 'BGT v. DJT et al.' has a row in the summary table but no text summary in the article body.
There is also the related issue of the Dominion/Smartmatic defamation lawsuits, which are mentioned more than once in this article (even in the lede) but it's not clear if they are listed in the table of counts or why they are not given text summaries in the article body. Are these defamation lawsuits not good for inclusion in tables because they are not about election procedures but rather about allegations about election procedures?
I think it would be helpful to 1) define a clear criteria by which a lawsuit should be tallied and summarized in this article (as opposed to in a state-specific article, or not at all), 2) state this criteria clearly at the end of the lede (and maybe "Summary of post-election lawsuits" section), and 3) add or remove cases from those currently listed such that the article comes into line with the criteria.
2001:480:91:5401:0:0:0:543 ( talk) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead says "filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits." I don't see any of the provided references support that. It appears the 86 figure came exclusively from George Stephanopoulos: "there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed" [7] but I think he misspoke. My understanding is 86 judges, either independently or collectively in a panel or full court decision, rejected the suits. Marc Elias, who was deeply involved in the litigation, says the number was 63 by January 11. [8]] soibangla ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Having a timeline would be nice, for historical purposes. Please comment here if you think this is a good/bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72B0:F600:4C2B:74DD:1FEF:19A3 ( talk) 08:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Mean while in Georgia over 5000 ‘lost’ Trump votes where found during the recount. No explanation was given." -- The explanation is known. 2 counties reported problems. Floyd county found 2600 votes in a box that weren't counted. Fayette county found 2755 votes on a memory card that were never uploaded. https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-recount-uncovers-2600-new-votes-in-presidential-race/I75NSPYYGNF43HQZBPYKJWJ5MA/ https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/2755-uncounted-votes-found-on-memory-card-in-fayette-county-officials-say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.110.91 ( talk) 06:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It's really hard to parse the "Ruled" lawsuits at a glance to determine if it was in favor of either party. Might I suggest an 'in favor of' column for the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontusenumbers ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Here's a report on Krebs' reaction to Guilani's election fraud allegation. Worth an add? https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/526764-ousted-cyber-official-giuliani-press-conference-most-dangerous-1hr-45min Bobby fletcher ( talk) 02:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Just read through this article and I wanted to say "well-done" to all concerned. It has been kept factual and NPOV, an admittedly difficult task in the current climate. Manning ( talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the typos in the filling documents should be omitted from this article. Typos in the fillings really doesn't affect the validity of the accusations (or the lack thereof). Perhaps the numerous typos could reflect sloppiness and unprofessionalism of the part of Trump's legal team, but I can't see how they could significantly impact the outcome of these lawsuits. It just seems like a petty "Grammar Nazi" type nitpick to me, and reeks of the editor throwing around their personal opinions. Unless it could proven that the typos have a discernible influence on the lawsuits, I would leave them out of this page. If don't agree with me on this, feel free to add your differing views here. Randomuser335S ( talk) 02:45, 28 November 2020
== Organize this article differently? == It is being widely reported that the SCOtUS has agreed to review 5 separate law suites involving charges of election fraud on February 19, 2021. This review will determine their interest in further hearing any or all of these cases. Any fruther hearing by the court would then be held in October 2021.[Search domain americanmilitarynews.com/2021/02/supreme-court-to-decide-if-two-trump-election-fraud-cases-can-proceed-this-month/] I'm not a a lawyer but a media professional, and I would think that any legitimate news or reporting entity, including Wikipedia, would do well to reconsider and possibly revise the words like baseless and without merit with reference to all charges made by Republicans with regard to election fraud - unless they have personally conducted a review of the evidence and made that judgement.. h Lewis 2-7-21
It seems that this article is meant to compile all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election, but also describes and summarizes information about the topic and each case. There are hundreds of these lawsuits, and it is quite the undertaking to document each one. According to a USA Today analysis, “[i]n all, more than 230 election-related federal lawsuits were filed from Jan. 1 to Oct. 23, higher than any of the past three presidential election years during the same time period.” [1] According to Reuters, “[m]ore than 300 lawsuits have been filed in 44 states about the Nov. 3 election.” [2] And this doesn’t even include lawsuits filed post-election. More, there are already sites dedicated to tracking this, as listed in the article, by the Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy Docket, the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, and SCOTUSblog. Do we need to duplicate those efforts? After editing the page for a few days, I wonder if this article is casting the net too wide? Would readers be better served by a different approach to summarizing accepted information on this topic? Wdougs ( talk) 15:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this a Wisconsin case? Raffensperger is the Sec of State for Georgia. JuliettPapaGolf ( talk) 01:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Does this court document [3] indicate the case has been dismissed? Ptousig ( talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
How about adding a one sentence summary at the top of the Summary of post-election lawsuits? Maybe stating ## cases dismissed, ## cases dropped, ## cases ruled for the plaintiff, ## cases ruled for the defendant, ## cases ongoing, etc. GoingBatty ( talk) 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Referencing actual lawsuits with actual sworn witnesses would be counterproductive to the narrative that it’s all a crazy right-wing conspiracy with zero evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuizo ( talk • contribs)
This has been appealed. See here. Though I'm not in a position to mess with the fancy table. GMG talk 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wondering if it would be useful to provide a link for each case in the table, to its associated page on a docket tracker. Since many seem to already have links to Court Listener, I'd probably start with this one and go from there. But since such a large addition of links from one site might irk some editors the wrong way, I thought I'd ask for feedback here before doing it. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The initial filing may be read here. It is an appeal regarding In re November 3, 2020 General Election, In re Canvassing Observation, and In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-In Ballots of November 3, 2020 General Election. I have corrected the name in the article. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk) 03:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC).
I've seen multiple sources state that Wisconsin missed safe harbor, such as this one. I've heard Judge Ludwig said so on Dec. 10. That was a seven-hour hearing (with recesses) and there's no PDF for Courtlistener for that hearing. Renard Migrant ( talk) 14:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
New Mexico case filed today, not of any significance though, not sure if it should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:C200:7E7C:D66:E4DD:8372:5F9C ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Legal analysis by an expert, in regards to Rule 11 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/trump-lose-frivolous-election-lawsuits.html It may be of relevance for the coverage here. IHateAccounts ( talk) 23:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Wdougs: I think its about time to split these pages even further to each individual state. I've been doing some extensive additions to the pre-election webpage in regards to Pennsylvania. I definitely have more to add there but now that I'm moving on to the post-election lawsuits for Pennsylvania the page is getting a bit too cumbersome and wieldy to make any meaningful addition while also providing a timeline of events. Furthermore, I think separating these into individual states and allowing the current pages to remain as an overall summary of the collective state litigation and whatever rises up to above state level into the Circuit Courts/Supreme Court will definitely help the organization of the content. TheBigRedTank ( talk) 05:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this newest lawsuit would fall. [ link] The plaintiffs include a U.S. House Rep from Texas and the head of Arizona's GOP; it's filed against Pence, in a federal court in Texas, and is seeking to have a law passed in 1887 ruled unconstitutional. Anyone have suggestions? -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 21:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Pence has responded, so the suppositions by @ Arglebargle79: seem to be moot. [6] IHateAccounts ( talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to make some of the content more NPOV and keep getting my changes reverted without comment (currently the thing considered an edit war). I worry it can be misleading to describe the accusations of voting corruption as hands down false, and I reviewed some citations and they didn't mention that these things were false, simply that they were discarded and basically very overblown. There is actual small voting corrupting that people are working hard to fight, and Trump's attempts to yell about made up corruption everywhere could harm that fight. Here my edits were marked as POVPUSH without any additional comment and reverted without any comment at all. I'm not a big participant in wikipedia, and usually don't get into conflicts when I do edit it, and I'm not sure how to pursue this further. I think it is incredibly important we stick to what is clearly true, rather than pushing various sides, in situations like these, or the truth can get covered up by the big thing of the day, which presently is either no voting fraud or immense voting fraud, with no middle ground for the reality where people supporting both parties engage in a small amount of probably balanced fraud. 2601:187:C07F:B4C0:0:0:0:5515 ( talk) 17:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely asserted widespread election fraud...to your suggestion of the far less-succinct,
Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters have been widely refuted in their assertions of widespread election fraud...-- Pinchme123 ( talk) 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Request correct "partial dissent" to "Statement of Justice Alito" The current article wording is incorrect, no dissent or partial dissent was filed by Justices Alito or Thomas. "Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, then partially dissented:"
Per the Supreme Court source document a statement was made, not a partial dissent, the correct legal wording is important, Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.11.236.192 ( talk) 05:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
At the time of this writing, the "unresolved cases" table of the "Counts" section has eight cases listed. Six of these cases have yet to exhaust their appeals and two of these cases have ongoing trials (MWRO v. DJT in DC and DJT v. Boockvar in PA). The table listing the "total counts" directly above that, however, does not match those numbers. The "total counts" table lists three ongoing trials. Of those supposed three ongoing trials, one is in PA (matching DJT v. Boockvar) and two are in "other" jurisdictions (MWRO v. DJT meets this description).
Is there another ongoing case (in an "other" jurisdiction) that is not listed in the "ongoing cases" table, and, if so, should it be added to that table? If not, it seems the count of ongoing trials in the "total counts" table should be reduced to two. So many cases have come and gone that I'd prefer to not presume that my own memory of the count is correct. 2600:1700:68D0:6F10:B41E:DE34:A191:58E7 ( talk) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi Wiki Editors! Long time donor, first time suggestor. :)
This is an important page for our country. I was about to create a page like this myself, which would be an unbiased summary of all the court cases, and it seems you have made incredible progress here. It is missing some important information: 1. Name of Judge 2. Political affiliation 3. Trump appointee? (Y/N) 4. The total number of cases. It's missing a bunch. It's hard to keep up I"m sure. I heard there were 61 total thus far. I've seen articles that say "over 50", but it is surprisingly hard to find an accurate, unbiased, summary of all of them. This seems right in Wikipedia's wheelhouse!
Ideally there would be links to view the transcripts of these cases. I don't like excerpts from transcripts because they can be biased or viewed as biased, so maybe a link to the transcript and the identify where there is interesting testimony, so everyone can see the context.
Thank you for your contributions on this so far. I think this page could really help everyone understand the honest state of these cases based on filings and transcripts - vs seeing a summary from some reporter. BigDaddyWarbuck ( talk) 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something but I don't see the Davis lawsuits listed.
To quote Mr. Davis, "This is not a Sidney Powell lawsuit. This is not a Rudy Giuliani lawsuit. This is not a Lin Wood lawsuit." No. It's way crazier even than those lawsuits. Way way crazier. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I found this added by an editor named: User:MickTravis_If
If it isn't clear, let me state this is absolutely NOT my personal comment. I've added it here to start a discussion. I have also dropped a warning on the users talk page. Timmccloud ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There have been many iterations of Wikipedia attempting to catalog litigation related to the 2020 US elections. This is fine, and has mostly been due to the situation changing over time. For example, there was originally one article containing all lawsuits pre- and post-election, but this became unwieldy as more and more lawsuits were filed. Then the offshoot post-election litigation article became unwieldy itself due to size, resulting in the creation of state-specific post-election litigation articles.
As I said, this is fine on its own, but I think it has led to a situation in which it's not clear to me why some lawsuits are tabulated and summarized in this article, as opposed to being only detailed in the relevant state article, or if there is supposed to be some overlap, etc. Unless I have missed something, there is no sentence in this article saying something like: "This specific article catalogs lawsuits which meet the criteria [X,Y,Z]. Further details about lawsuits in a specific state can be found linked in each state's section of this article."
One sign of the lack of clarity here is that as the article stands now, not all the cases given text summaries in the subheaders are given full entries in the summary table and vice versa. 'DJTfP v. Boockvar et al.', 'DJTfP v. Oliver et al.', and 'Mark Jefferson v. Dane County, Wisconsin' are given text summaries in the body of this article, but are not given rows in the 'Summary' table. Two of those cases are also from states with their own litigation articles. Is there a reason that those cases are included in this article instead of the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin articles? Conversely, 'BGT v. DJT et al.' has a row in the summary table but no text summary in the article body.
There is also the related issue of the Dominion/Smartmatic defamation lawsuits, which are mentioned more than once in this article (even in the lede) but it's not clear if they are listed in the table of counts or why they are not given text summaries in the article body. Are these defamation lawsuits not good for inclusion in tables because they are not about election procedures but rather about allegations about election procedures?
I think it would be helpful to 1) define a clear criteria by which a lawsuit should be tallied and summarized in this article (as opposed to in a state-specific article, or not at all), 2) state this criteria clearly at the end of the lede (and maybe "Summary of post-election lawsuits" section), and 3) add or remove cases from those currently listed such that the article comes into line with the criteria.
2001:480:91:5401:0:0:0:543 ( talk) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead says "filed and lost at least 86 lawsuits." I don't see any of the provided references support that. It appears the 86 figure came exclusively from George Stephanopoulos: "there were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court, all were dismissed" [7] but I think he misspoke. My understanding is 86 judges, either independently or collectively in a panel or full court decision, rejected the suits. Marc Elias, who was deeply involved in the litigation, says the number was 63 by January 11. [8]] soibangla ( talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)