Judges tied to both Republicans and Democrats rejected President Donald Trump’s arguments about the election of his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.
Trump’s team has filed more than 30 lawsuits in six key battlefield states and Washington DC, unsuccessfully questioning the election results and vowing to file further submissions. Eventually, a number of cases were dismissed without judicial action amid questions of merit or location, but others sparked an overwhelming consensus among politically mixed judges.
Trump did not allow the election, but on Monday night indicated that he would no longer stop Biden’s temporary efforts, and even asks he vowed to continue to challenge the election result in court.
“Trump’s lawsuits continue to fail as there have been more than 30 cases since election day, states continue to prove their results, and Joe Biden will swear in as president on January 20, 2021,” said Bob Bauer, Biden’s senior adviser. statement to reporters on Tuesday.
Trump’s campaign continues to solicit donations from supporters in several emails and SMSs every day, although the disclaimers on the donation pages indicate that much of the money will be earmarked for Trump’s newly formed Political Action Committee rather than its legal basis.
“We will continue to fight election fraud across the country as we fight to count all legal votes,” Trump’s legal counsel, Jenna Ellis, said in a statement Monday night. “We need to assure Americans that the end results are fair and legitimate.”
The campaign provided no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud or other irregularities, and judges quickly dismissed a number of cases filed.
With the support of the GOP-controlled senate, Trump has focused the past four years on filling his court openings with his allies, but that has so far not brought him an election victory.
Here are some of the judges who ruled on Trump’s arguments:
U.S. District Court, Central District: In Trump v Boockvar, the Trump campaign unsuccessfully argued against justifying the Pennsylvania results because of fraud in the state’s postal voting system.
Judge Matthew Brann, who gave Trump’s team of lawyers a severe reprimand for dismissing the case, was appointed to the court by Democrat Barack Obama in 2012, but Brann was previously a POPsylvania GOP official and a conservative jurist.
“This statement, like the Frankenstein monster, was randomly linked from two different theories in order to avoid checking the precedent,” he wrote. “This court has no jurisdiction to violate the Constitution.”
American District Court, Eastern District: In Trump v. Philadelphia County Electoral Council, the Trump campaign argued that observers do not have sufficient access.
Judge Paul Diamond, the nominee for Republican President George W. Bush, retaliated against Trump’s lawyers after admitting they had permission for observers during the vote count: “I’m sorry, what’s wrong with you?”
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania: In Trump v Boockvar, the Trump campaign argued that extending the deadline for the Secretary of State to identify certain postal votes was illegal.
Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, a Republican elected in 2001, gave the Trump team a slight victory when she agreed that a small number of ballots should be excluded from the official count.
Bucks County Court with Common Pleas: In Trump v. Bucks County Electoral Council, the Trump campaign used a tactic that is used in other cases and sought to throw away some ballots for signature issues.
The judge, Robert Baldi, who ruled against Trump’s claims, was a Republican but was first appointed by the then Pennsylvania government. Ed Rendell, Democrat.
Common Legal Basis: Again: Outcome of absentees and postal votes, general elections on 3 November 2020, the Trump campaign challenged some ballots with some issues, including missing dates.
Judge James Crumlish, a Democrat elected for a ten-year term this year, rejected the arguments as minor.
Montgomery County Court with Common Pleas: Trump v. Montgomery County Electoral Council, Trump’s campaign argued that ballot papers should be thrown at voters who have been notified of mistakes, including missing signatures.
Judge Richard Haaz, a Democrat who was elected to office, rejected the argument and ruled that the ballots were still valid.
Nevada U.S. District Court: In Stokke v Cegavske, Trump supporters argued against the use of the automatic signature-verification machine in support of the campaign.
Judge Andrew Gordon, who was appointed to the bench by Democrat Barack Obama, dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
Michigan State Court: In Trump v. Benson, the Trump campaign argued that some of its election observers were prevented from counting votes.
Judge Cynthia Stephens was appointed by the Democratic governor of Michigan in 2008, accusing the case of being “heard” and without evidence.
Michigan 3rd District Court, Wayne County: In Constantino v Detroit, asked some Republican poll observers to check the vote, claiming they thought there was fraud in the table.
Chief Justice Timothy Kenny, who has been on the bench since 1996, ruled that the lawsuit was based on a misunderstanding based on the process. Kenny’s position is an elected office without political parties.
Georgia Upper Court District Eastern Judicial District: Repeated: Enforcement of election laws and provision of ballot papers cast or received after 19:00 on 3 November 2020, the Trump campaign argued that votes cast after 7pm on election day should not be counted.
Judge James Bass, then appointed to the bench in 1995 by then-Governor Zell Miller, dismissed the case in a brief statement, arguing that there was no evidence that any ballot paper had been received late.
The Trump campaign did not respond immediately Newsweekrequest on the current outcome of the court case.