(The Center Square) – Seven lawsuits in 52 days before the North Carolina State Board of Elections seemed to be common. And it was.
Considering that the Republican National Committee has filed more than 130 nationally, and only four of those seven, a drop in the bucket might be a more accurate description. Democrats filed one of the seven, plus another against the We The People Party.
Election 2024 – decision day is still eleven sunrises away – is certainly the Year of the Litigator. By Florida to Alaska and Arizona to New Yorklawsuits are everywhere.
And “just to be clear,” as a lawyer might say in court: will it matter?
“The Republican Party’s lawsuit is largely about election integrity, seemingly sowing the seeds of doubt and distrust for challenges if Trump loses the election,” Steven Greene, a political science professor at NC State University, told The Center Square. “They can point to these lawsuits and basically say, ‘Look, we already told you there’s some funny stuff going on with the election.’
“I suspect the voters are not paying attention at all. “It’s about laying the groundwork so that post-election election integrity claims appear more legitimate based on pre-election litigation.”
He is not alone in his judgment. While the largest voting bloc comes from the state of more than 7.7 million registrations, almost 38% are not connectedit is estimated that the leans give only about 10% true independent status.
“I suspect this is largely noise for voters, who will make a difference in determining the outcome of the election,” Mitch Kokai, senior political analyst at the conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation, told The Center Square. “Lawsuits may inflame some base voters, but these are the people most likely to turn out to vote regardless of the lawsuit. When the average person hears that a Democratic group has denounced Republicans – or vice versa – the most likely reaction is indifference. It’s hard to imagine any of these lawsuits playing a significant role in how anyone votes this fall.”
Kokai said the themes are expected and that they advance policy positions that inherently “separate Democrats from Republicans.” In the courtrooms of North Carolina, Democrats have challenged the election maps of the Republican majority legislature, while Republicans have challenged the decisions of the Democratic majority election board.
“The lawsuits accused Republicans of engaging in racist gerrymandering — largely because that is the only type of legal claim that state and federal courts will still consider in cases involving electoral maps,” Kokai said. “Republicans’ lawsuits have defended state lawmakers’ decisions in drawing the disputed maps. Republican lawyers have said Republicans are adhering to state and federal constitutions and previous court guidance.
“In the final months of the election cycle, we saw a series of lawsuits filed by state and national Republican groups challenging actions by the State Board of Elections, which has a 3-2 Democratic majority. The Republican lawsuits consistently argued that the state elections board violated state law in handling issues such as voter registration, voter roll maintenance and absentee ballot mailing rules. Democrats’ lawsuits have defended the State Board of Elections and accused Republicans of seeking to create chaos and confusion while raising concerns about the integrity of the election process.”
Whether it’s attitude or real profit is up for debate.
“Frankly, it is difficult at this point to gauge how many of the Republican legal attacks on election integrity are in good faith and not just sham,” Greene said. “What is clear is that they are largely deserving, but Republicans have questioned election integrity so diligently since 2020 that many of them may have come to drink the Kook-Aid to this.”
Ironically, there are fewer middle-class voters to win, according to a report earlier this month nonprofit OpenSecrets estimates a $15.9 billion election rural. Rest assured, the meter has been running for lawyers.
“Both sides view the courtroom as one battlefield where they must either defend their position or attack their opponent’s position, depending on who files the charges,” Kokai said. “None of the suits I’ve seen are completely frivolous, but some seem to have more substance than others. The ones that carry the most weight are those in which the facts suggest that people who made the challenged decisions deliberately chose to ignore the letter of the law. That is difficult to prove.”