Ongoing Legal Battles from 2020 Election

It’s hard to believe that the 2020 election was six years ago. Yet, two Democratic attorneys general, Chris Mays from Arizona and Josh Kaul from Wisconsin—who are both gearing up for re-election—are still entangled in legal skirmishes with supporters of Trump. Honestly, it’s time for this to stop.

Many, including President Trump, have flagged several inconsistencies from that election. They raised questions about the results in various states that were pretty close. The First Amendment along with the Electoral Count Act of 1887 supports these challenges, similar to the way Democrats contested Republican victories in years past: 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016, just to name a few. Some have rather harshly labeled those challenging the results as pushing for “fake electors” to undo certified results.

This line of reasoning seems pretty absurd, doesn’t it? I mean, Rudy Giuliani didn’t have “real” electors stashed away when he allegedly sent in these “fake” ones.

The electors that were put forth were intended as backups in case Congress objected to certifying electors from disputed states back on January 6, 2021. 

In 2022, Mays triumphed over Republican Abraham Hamadeh by a narrow margin of fewer than 300 votes to take on the role of Arizona’s attorney general. Since then, she’s aggressively targeted Trump supporters legally. Former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who held the position before her, didn’t pursue any action against those contesting the election because he said there simply wasn’t any crime. But Mays opted to seek indictments against 11 alternate electors and several others, including Mike Roman, who was at the helm of Trump’s campaign on Election Day.

The Maricopa County Trial Court dismissed the charges against some of these defendants, instructing Mays to revise the accusations. Seems she forgot to present the grand jury with the complete text of the Election Counting Act, which relates directly to her case and is quite complicated. If the law backed the actions of those involved, it’s unlikely the state could successfully pursue the suit. After all, federal law takes precedence over state law in matters of federal elections.

Mays hastily appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, but they chose not to hear it. Now she’s turning to the Arizona Supreme Court for a review. It would be wise for the justices to echo the Court of Appeals and decline her appeal.

It’s worth noting that Mays previously hinted at investigating Trump for allegedly threatening former Rep. Liz Cheney during a campaign rally. Naturally, Trump didn’t make such a threat, and Mays quietly dropped this idea soon after Trump’s significant win last November.

Wisconsin, similarly, faces a partisan attorney general in Kaul, who, like Mays, is seeking his own re-election. Nearly four years after the 2020 results, both Mays and Kaul are pressing charges against three defendants, including Roman and two attorneys for Trump.

Interestingly, Kaul didn’t take action against Wisconsin’s alternate electors. The ongoing hearings are happening in Dane County, a location heavily influenced by Democratic views, making it challenging to find an impartial jury.

On December 15th, a preliminary hearing will occur. One defendant is pursuing an effort to disbar Judge John Hyland. They argue that Judge Frank Remington wrote an opinion dismissing their motion to dismiss the case. The motion was backed by a Georgetown expert who believed the writing style indicated Remington was indeed the author. However, Hyland has denied these claims, asserting that he wrote the opinion himself.

Regardless of the hearing’s outcome, it would make sense to put a close on this case. Kaul’s accusations come at a questionable time, right in the middle of the 2024 election cycle. Politics shouldn’t be criminalized this way.

Another noteworthy case involves Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who attempted to prosecute several individuals following the 2020 Georgia election. After some scandal emerged regarding her personal life and financial issues related to a special prosecutor, her case faltered. Eventually, a court disbarred her and her replacement dismissed the case recently.

It seems that Democrats couldn’t significantly affect Trump in the election itself or diminish him financially, so now they seem intent on extracting whatever they can from his former aides and allies. Unless Mays and Kaul choose to follow the Georgia special counsel’s example and drop these questionable lawsuits, courts in Arizona and Wisconsin ought to dismiss them as well.

Furthermore, there’s a compelling case for the Department of Justice to consider charging these actions as conspiracies that violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. 241. After all, the familiar refrain we often heard is, “no one is above the law.”