By American Bar Association
Judges at all levels of the judiciary should be prepared for an influx of cases related to the 2024 presidential election, legal experts said during the webinar “What Judges Should Know About Election Law,” presented by the ABA Judicial Division and the Standing Committee on Election Law.
The webinar “What Judges Should Know About Election Law,” was presented by the ABA Judicial Division and the Standing Committee on Election Law.
Judge Peter M. Reyes Jr. of the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted a Bloomberg article, which examined at least 165 election-related lawsuits that have been filed since 2023.
“In contrast, in 2020 there were approximately 62 federal lawsuits with the main focus being on allegations of voter fraud,” he said. “While the courts consistently rejected those claims…I think it’s safe to say that this time around it’s not just going to be federal lawsuits.”
Reyes said this year more lawsuits could be filed in state courts than federal courts, particularly in states where new statutes have been enacted since 2020. Those lawsuits could include challenges to state and county registrars, ballot-counting measures and the legitimacy of poll workers and judges, he said.
“A third of the cases have been focused on who should be allowed to vote,” Reyes said, citing specific cases that involve challenges to remote voting and to ballots with mistakes.
Temporary restraining orders by both major political parties and others may also be filed to stop certification of elections, he said. With the expected increase in lawsuits, former Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who is president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, said that courts must plan now to act quickly.
“The court must be ready to act expediently but thoroughly, which may sound in some respects as inconsistent adjectives, but is imperative because all eyes turn to the court and the expectations of the court,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye said trial judges should “immediately set a briefing schedule that has no time continuances, which ensures that all parties can be heard and that you make a complete and thorough record and [understand] that the media has eyes on you.”
Cantil-Sakauye further said that many of the trial cases will go up on appeal and “the court of appeal is going to be held to the facts created at the trial court.”
She said it may be helpful for the chief justice at the appellate level to create a panel of judges who are not up for election to assist with the case. “It is important that the panel be balanced politically, with experience, with age, with diversity and across the board. “Because all eyes will be there,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “We are always described by who appointed us and what our party is regardless of…the merits of the case we’re deciding.”
At the appellate court and Supreme Court levels, judges should strongly consider whether to take the case, Cantil-Sakauye said. “At the Supreme Court we think very carefully about whether or not we should take it and the repercussions and consequences from taking it because many times the issue can be resolved …and we never have to weigh in.”
Mark Martin, dean and professor of law at the Kenneth F. Kahn School of Law at High Point University, spoke on the importance of deliberate action. He said political sensitivities are heightened this election cycle with polls showing that a majority of Americans view the courts as partisan. “We obviously don’t make decisions as judges according to the polls…but this counsels judges to exercise caution in election cases. Fairness, impartiality and independence should be the touchstones.”
Peter Koelling, director of the master of public administration program and instructional associate professor at the University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs, moderated the panel.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024)
Judges at all levels of the judiciary should be prepared for an influx of cases related to the 2024 presidential election, legal experts said during the webinar “What Judges Should Know About Election Law,” presented by the ABA Judicial Division and the Standing Committee on Election Law.
The webinar “What Judges Should Know About Election Law,” was presented by the ABA Judicial Division and the Standing Committee on Election Law.
Judge Peter M. Reyes Jr. of the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted a Bloomberg article, which examined at least 165 election-related lawsuits that have been filed since 2023.
“In contrast, in 2020 there were approximately 62 federal lawsuits with the main focus being on allegations of voter fraud,” he said. “While the courts consistently rejected those claims…I think it’s safe to say that this time around it’s not just going to be federal lawsuits.”
Reyes said this year more lawsuits could be filed in state courts than federal courts, particularly in states where new statutes have been enacted since 2020. Those lawsuits could include challenges to state and county registrars, ballot-counting measures and the legitimacy of poll workers and judges, he said.
“A third of the cases have been focused on who should be allowed to vote,” Reyes said, citing specific cases that involve challenges to remote voting and to ballots with mistakes.
Temporary restraining orders by both major political parties and others may also be filed to stop certification of elections, he said. With the expected increase in lawsuits, former Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who is president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, said that courts must plan now to act quickly.
“The court must be ready to act expediently but thoroughly, which may sound in some respects as inconsistent adjectives, but is imperative because all eyes turn to the court and the expectations of the court,” she said.
Cantil-Sakauye said trial judges should “immediately set a briefing schedule that has no time continuances, which ensures that all parties can be heard and that you make a complete and thorough record and [understand] that the media has eyes on you.”
Cantil-Sakauye further said that many of the trial cases will go up on appeal and “the court of appeal is going to be held to the facts created at the trial court.”
She said it may be helpful for the chief justice at the appellate level to create a panel of judges who are not up for election to assist with the case. “It is important that the panel be balanced politically, with experience, with age, with diversity and across the board. “Because all eyes will be there,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “We are always described by who appointed us and what our party is regardless of…the merits of the case we’re deciding.”
At the appellate court and Supreme Court levels, judges should strongly consider whether to take the case, Cantil-Sakauye said. “At the Supreme Court we think very carefully about whether or not we should take it and the repercussions and consequences from taking it because many times the issue can be resolved …and we never have to weigh in.”
Mark Martin, dean and professor of law at the Kenneth F. Kahn School of Law at High Point University, spoke on the importance of deliberate action. He said political sensitivities are heightened this election cycle with polls showing that a majority of Americans view the courts as partisan. “We obviously don’t make decisions as judges according to the polls…but this counsels judges to exercise caution in election cases. Fairness, impartiality and independence should be the touchstones.”
Peter Koelling, director of the master of public administration program and instructional associate professor at the University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs, moderated the panel.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024)
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
