election challenges

Debunking the Media’s Claim That All of Trump’s 2020 Election Challenges Were ‘Baseless’

19 January 2024

1.7 MINS

By Kyle Becker

It is commonly claimed that Trump’s 2020 election challenges were baseless, however a recent review shows that Trump and the GOP won 22 out of the 30 cases that were decided on the merits.

An Election Integrity review conducted on 92 court challenges filed over the 2020 election found that a clear majority of the cases decided on the merits were ruled favorably for the plaintiffs; particularly, the Republican Party and the Trump campaign.

The election review noted the cases decided on the merits and those that were dismissed for lack of standing or other procedural issues.

“Some Non-Merit reasons for stopping lawsuits from going forward are for: a) Standing, b) Timing [Laches], c) Judicial authority [Jurisdiction], and d) Moot (e.g. not enough malfeasance to make a difference).”

The list of court cases decided on the merits, meaning “the Plaintiff was able to argue the facts of the case, and, if applicable, given opportunity to present evidence via Discovery,” as well as the links to the case information, can be found below.

election challenges

‘The Election Challenges Were Legal and Valid’

“You’re gonna wanna bookmark this,” remarked Arizona Sun Times reporter Rachel Alexander.

“This is a compilation of all of the 2020 election challenges and what became of them. Despite the MSM lies that 60+ election challenges found no evidence of wrongdoing, there were actually 92 cases, with only 30 decided on the merits, and of those 30, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 22 of them.”

The case entries, many linking to Stanford’s Healthy Election Project, confirm the statuses and the rulings.

It is debatable whether affirmative rulings in all of the cases would have been sufficient to lead to Donald Trump being elected instead of Joe Biden.

The pivotal lawsuit may have been the Texas case brought by AG Ken Paxton contending that a number of swing states made unconstitutional election changes, because they did not go through the state legislatures. This case was denied by the Supreme Court, despite the Constitution stipulating its original jurisdiction.

Furthermore, many states have since decided that 2020 election practices such as the inclusion of privately funded “Zuckerboxes” were either illegal or were subsequently outlawed.

It is up for debate whether any particular lawsuit would have been the deciding factor, but the critical underlying point is that the election challenges were legal and valid. The sum of these lawsuits paint the picture that the “fortified” 2020 election was highly flawed and undemocratic, since it did not abide by fundamental practices of election integrity.

Thus debunks a widespread narrative: Trump’s legal challenges to the 2020 election were all “baseless.”


Originally published on X. Image courtesy of Unsplash.

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.

One Comment

  1. Ian Moncrieff 19 January 2024 at 3:26 pm - Reply

    Great news. I doubt this would have been published elsewhere. Thank you.

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles:

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life



The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.