As the November 5th election approaches, courts in pivotal US battleground states are taking decisive actions to expedite lawsuits related to the election, hoping to prevent drawn-out disputes that could delay the announcement of results. This preemptive approach reflects a growing awareness of the potential for legal challenges and the need to ensure a smooth and timely election process.
Arizona’s court system has become the latest to implement special procedures aimed at swift resolution of election-related litigation. The state’s supreme court issued an order instructing trial court judges to prioritize any lawsuits concerning the outcome of the 2024 election. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer emphasized the importance of expeditious judicial proceedings in a presidential election, stating that prioritizing such cases is crucial.
The order mandates that any election-related cases must be scheduled with sufficient time for appeals to be decided, including cases concerning vote recounts and those related to presidential electors, before the finalization of election results. Arizona is one of seven highly competitive states expected to play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the presidential race between Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.
This proactive approach in Arizona follows similar measures adopted in at least two other battleground states – Pennsylvania and Michigan. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in August temporarily modified its rules to ensure swift resolution of election-related appeals, reducing the usual 10-day timeframe to just three days, requiring parties to file briefs within 24 hours of initiating an appeal.
Michigan’s state court administrator, in a memo issued last month, advised court clerks and judges across the state to promptly notify the clerk of the state’s supreme court and relevant state officials upon the filing of any election-related lawsuit. The Michigan Court of Appeals has also announced plans to publish contact information for its clerk’s office and procedures for seeking emergency appellate rulings on its website.
These preemptive actions by courts in key battleground states reflect a growing awareness of the potential for legal challenges following the election, echoing the experience of the 2020 election when Trump and his allies launched numerous lawsuits, many unsuccessful, seeking to overturn the results based on unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud. This cycle, Trump’s allies have already initiated legal strategies, filing lawsuits that raise concerns over mail-in ballot verification procedures and potential instances of illegal voting by noncitizens, among other issues.
Experts like James Gardner, an election law expert at the University at Buffalo School of Law, believe these new measures are designed to ensure the conclusion of legal disputes related to the presidential election before the federal deadlines for certifying electors.
Justin Levitt, an election law scholar at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former White House adviser on democracy policy under Biden, views these preemptive court orders as a wise and sensible approach, recognizing the likelihood of litigation after the election. He emphasizes the importance of the courts being prepared to handle the logistics and processes efficiently and smoothly to avoid delays in certifying the election results.
In addition to preparing for legal challenges, courts are also taking steps to address potential security risks on Election Day. Following a warning from a top US judiciary official in September about potential threats to judges during periods of heightened national tension, courts are implementing security measures to protect judges and ensure the safety of the election process.