2

Another Trump backed lawsuit to overturn the November 2020 election has failed to be heard due to lack of standing.

He ruled that US Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and a slate of Republican electors from Arizona could not show they suffered any personal harm “fairly traceable” to Pence’s allegedly unlawful conduct and, therefore, lacked legal standing to bring the case.

The Texas suit last month was similarly dismissed, and lack of standing seems a common result which prevents arguments from being heard.

The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Ultimately these suits are being pressed by some of the most senior politicians within the US, they are backed by presumably competent and expensive lawyers. Why are these suits failing at the first and most obvious hurdle and failing to even present their arguments in court?

4
  • From what I have read, the vast majority of lawyers who are competent enough to argue at the federal level have completely bailed from these lawsuits that were doomed to fail. – David Hammen Jan 2 at 12:42
  • 9
    The legal aspect of this question, especially "standing", could perhaps be better suited for Law.SE. – Panda Jan 2 at 13:08
  • 2
    To put it in simple terms, you can't sue just because you don't like who the president-elect is. You have to show how you were harmed by this outcome, e.g. you can do that if you are Trump, but most random people actually can't show something would clear the bar for most judges. – Fizz Jan 2 at 15:41
  • N.B. I wrote a bit more regarding the Gohmert suit (standing) in response to a related q: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/61282/… – Fizz Jan 2 at 18:25
7

Why are these suits failing at the first and most obvious hurdle and failing to even present their arguments in court?

Because they are not intended to succeed, legally. There have been hundreds of articles and analyses stating that there's no legal basis that would allow these suits to succeed, too many for me to even decide which one to link.

What these lawsuits do is support the GOP's narrative that the election was somehow fradulent (without any evidence of such fraud), that Biden's win was illegitimate, and that there's a poorly defined scary evil Deep State that works against all the good and honest truly American Republicans. Being dismissed due to something obscure like "standing" plays right into the Deep State accusations.

Since this is consistent with Republican messaging, we have to assume reinforcing that messaging is the intention of these lawsuits. While I can provide some theories what the goal of this messaging is, those would be speculation.

4
  • So being unable to present is to reinforce the conspiracy against rhetoric? – Jontia Jan 2 at 13:42
  • "Republican messaging" may be a bit too undiscriminating at this point as Senate Republicans have basically broken with Trump on this apnews.com/article/… to the point where Trump was ranting about them being "primaried" thehill.com/homenews/senate/… – Fizz Jan 2 at 18:48
  • 2
    @Jontia This way it can be argued that the court is refusing to even hear the case and look at the "evidence" because of some procedural rules about standing. This plays well with the Deep State conspiracy theory. – Peter Jan 2 at 21:47
  • 1
    @Fizz It seems to be a narrative that is actively spread by the head of the GOP, by the majority of Republican Representatives, entertained by a significant number of Republican Senators, and believed by a significant majority of Republican voters. I'm open to using a better term if you propose one. – Peter Jan 2 at 22:00

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .