Did judges hearing challenges to the 2020 election refuse to consider any evidence?

Monday, July 19, 2021
By Austin Tannenbaum

In a review of Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, USA Today stated that judges “dismissed [some cases] for lack of standing and others based on the merits of the voter fraud allegations.”

There are numerous examples of judges reviewing evidence submitted by parties alleging election fraud, as is customary in court cases that have standing.

  • A Nevada judge ruled that “the contestants failed...to provide credible and relevant evidence to substantiate any” of their allegations.
  • A Third Circuit Appeals Court judge wrote: “Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
  • The Arizona Supreme Court chief justice wrote: “The challenge fails to present any evidence...let alone establish any degree of fraud...that would undermine the certainty of the election results.”

In December 2020, the Washington Post documented “at least 86” rejections of lawsuits filed by Trump or his supporters.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Between 2020 and 2022, under close editorial supervision, Gigafact contracted a group of freelance writers and editors to test the concepts for fact briefs and provide inputs to our software development process. We call this effort Gigafact Foundry. Over the course of these two years, Gigafact Foundry writers published over 1500 fact briefs in response to claims they found online. Their important work forms the basis of Gigafact formats and editorial guidelines, and is available to the public on Gigafact.org. Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of relevant information to be found, not all fact briefs produced by Gigafact Foundry reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs. If you come across any that you feel are out of date and need to be looked at with fresh eyes, don't hesitate to contact us at support@gigafact.org.