Talk:Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Are some of these lawsuits more-or-less aged out of relevance?
Should some of these lawsuits related to voter registration and voting methods--the Alabama lawsuit, for example--be labeled in some way to indicate that there's no longer relief possible? None of the issues in the Alabama lawsuit or the two Texas suits can be addressed any longer. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the summary table works to label the outcome/status of the cases...I added more information about the Texas cases, Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott & Texas League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott, and updated their "outcome" fields to "Ruled". I figure if relief is no longer possible, then the case has effectively been ruled on. Thoughts? Wdougs (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I also deleted the Alabama lawsuit because it involved a primary election runoff for US Senate seat, not necessarily related to lawsuits involving ballots being cast for 2020 US Presidential election. Wdougs (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "Legal cases ..."
How about we rename this article to "Legal cases related to the 2020 United States presidential election" which would then include criminal cases and not just civil suits?--Pakbelang (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a lawsuit can refer to both civil and criminal cases that are before a court, so I don't think the title/scope precludes you from adding information about criminal cases related to the election. Wdougs (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph needs fixing
Thank you for the article, but whoever wrote this, can you fix it? "vote img fromcounting". Misty MH (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I knew what was intended, I could have fixed it. :) Misty MH (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ It looks like this was corrected by a contributor. Wdougs (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge, Texas v. Pennsylvania et al
created a standalone article for this case, but I think this is premature before the court accepts or denies the petition and there are further developments. I merged the article per WP:MERGEREASON using a redirect but this was first time I've done anything of the sort, so I might be missing other steps or considerations. Wdougs (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems like a logical thing to do although not much merging seems to have taken place since most of the information was already in this article. But I agree that the case is not (yet?) notable enough for its own article which might change if the SC really takes it up. On a side note, if you want to link to a user, either use User:Username or the template. I fixed that for you. Regards  So  Why  07:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , true that. In essence I just redirected the page. Thanks for info on linking to users. Wdougs (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump v. Raffensperger docket number
I can find the court document for the original filing, but it has no docket number. A few articles mention that it was not successfully filed originally (missing fees), but was re-filed "later that day". Does anyone know how to find a docket number for it? I wanted to include it in the main table, but I'd like to be sure it is not already in there using a different title. Ptousig (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, found it. It is 2020CV343255. Ptousig (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Delineate pre- and post-election lawsuits in the "Summary" table?
As the article currently stands, the "Summary" table contains any lawsuits relating to the election without specification of date of filing. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does result in the intermixture of lawsuits filed before and after the election without indications of which is which. This is made more confusing by the lede of the article referring almost exclusively to lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign after the election, whereas the tables includes lawsuits filed by various parties at various times. The section on "Legal Analysis and Reactions" already has a sub-heading indicating that the discussion of controversy relates to post-election lawsuits alleging fraud. It would be useful to similarly delineate the lawsuits in the summary table for the convenience of the reader, and the most natural and objective way of separating the lawsuits is by their date of filing.

I know that the "Summary" table is already getting a little unwieldy, but, for the sake of clarity, would it help to add a column to state whether a given lawsuit was filed "pre-election" and "post-election"? Alternatively, we could split the current table into two tables such that one is for pre-election and one is for post-election lawsuits. Then each table could have a sub-header like the one in the "Legal Analysis and Reactions" section.

104.13.110.123 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 104.13.110.123 I agree that the summary table is unwieldy and it is a good idea to allow for delineation between lawsuits filed before versus after the election. What do you think about adding a column to the summary table with the initial filing date of each lawsuit? Wdougs (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)



Pearson v. Kemp attorneys of record
There are a number of attorneys of record in this case. See. Two are now mentioned by name: Sidney Powell and Marc Elias. Others are not. There are also a number of other Pro hac vice applications. Is there a consistent NPOV editorial policy on why (or why not) to discuss specific attorneys in this, or any other, case? I'm OK with the content as-is, but if it can be improved, so much the better. Seraphim3 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I wrote that Sidney Powell filed this lawsuit because it is described that way by multiple sources cited in the summary of this case (1, 2). It seems another contributor added information about Marc Elias; I suppose this could be removed as the contributor relied only primary source documents. I would think the threshold to add mention of a lawyer involved in a/the case is whether reliable secondary sources mention it. I think it may be less of a NPOV issue, and more about notability. Your thoughts? Wdougs (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @Wdougs So, apparently Sidney Powell and Marc Elias both have their own Wikipedia articles, both with 500+ revs. I think that addresses notability. I changed the section slightly, to mention them back to back, and with what I thought was more neutral wording, so that's NPOV. I'm fine with any further edits by more experienced editors here. I think your point on notability is well taken. If we mention every last attorney, in every last case, the article would become unwieldy. But if there's a consensus someone's notable, and it improves the article, that's very reasonable. Seraphim3 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It makes some sense to me that if an attorney is notable enough in their own right to justify a Wikipedia article, their involvement in the case can be verified by a reader without any specialist knowledge, and no one contests the inclusion of the information, then the information can be included. Though, there may be an argument for including info about an attorney only if reliable secondary sources used in the article mention the attorney...otherwise, it may be original research, to cite and interpret only primary documents in order to list which attorneys are notable enough to mention. Wdougs (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

On December 2, 2020, plaintiffs filed their appellant brief. See (, 2). I added more generic information about the appeal in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim3 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Seraphim3 (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your additions are appreciated, but personally I am hesitant to cite only primary sources (the actual court documents themselves) when writing about a case. When that happens, it might be considered original research because a contributor is interpreting information (what's important, what's not, how to frame), as opposed to letting secondary sources do that for the reader. Otherwise, I'm all for adding the court documents to supplement secondary sources. Your thoughts? Wdougs (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)