Voter suppression lawsuits Erick G. Kaardal worked on

Name Filed On Court Finalized Result
Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence 12/22/20 Federal Yes Trump Lost
Stevenson v. Ducey (Election Contest) 12/04/20 State Yes Trump Lost
Wood v. Raffensperger II (Certification) 11/25/20 State Yes Trump Lost
Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Wisconsin Elections Commission 11/23/20 State Yes Trump Lost

People are saying

"The Court ends by underlining that the relief requested in this lawsuit is staggering: to invalidate the election and prevent the electoral votes from being counted. When any counsel seeks to target processes at the heart of our democracy, the Committee may well conclude that they are required to act with far more diligence and good faith than existed here." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"Plaintiffs never did this [timely serve Defendants] or ever contacted the Court about a hearing prior to its January 4 Opinion, leading the Court to conclude that they wished only to file a sweeping Complaint filled with baseless fraud allegations and tenuous legal claims to undermine a legitimate presidential election." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"To wait [until only two weeks before the electoral votes were counted when the state statutes have been on the books for yeasrs] as counsel did smacks once again of political gamesmanship and may be relevant to the Committee." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"The only reason the Court can see for the Complaint to spend 70+ pages on irrelevant allegations of fraud, not one instance of which persuaded any court in any state to question the election’s outcome, is political grandstanding." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"The Court will not rebut each point Kaardal’s Response makes, including those pertaining to the flimsiness of the underlying basis for the suit, but it will note several of the numerous shortcomings that the Committee may wish to consider." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"Yet even that may be letting Plaintiffs off the hook too lightly. Their failure to make any effort to serve or formally notify any Defendant — even after reminder by the Court in its Minute Order — renders it difficult to believe that the suit is meant seriously. Courts are not instruments through which parties engage in such gamesmanship or symbolic political gestures. As a result, at the conclusion of this litigation, the Court will determine whether to issue an order to show cause why this matter should not be referred to its Committee on Grievances for potential discipline of Plaintiffs’ counsel." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"Plaintiffs’ theory that all of these [state election] laws are unconstitutional and that the Court should instead require state legislatures themselves to certify every Presidential election lies somewhere between a willful misreading of the Constitution and fantasy." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"Even if the Court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it still could not rule in Plaintiffs’ favor because their central contention is flat-out wrong." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"Plaintiffs cannot simply sue anyone they wish here in the District of Columbia. On the contrary, they must find a court or courts that have personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, and they never explain how a court in this city can subject to its jurisdiction, say, the Majority Leader of the Wisconsin State Senate." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"In order to provide an equitable briefing and hearing schedule on a very tight timetable, this Court immediately instructed Plaintiffs to file proofs of service on Defendants so that they could proceed on their preliminary-injunction Motion. . . . Twelve days later, Plaintiffs have still not provided proof of notice to any Defendant, let alone filed a single proof of service or explained their inability to do so." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"In addition to being filed on behalf of Plaintiffs without standing and (at least as to the state Defendants) in the wrong court and with no effort to even serve their adversaries, the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution." - Judge James E. Boasberg

"At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable." - Judge Brian Hagerdorn

"The petition’s legal support is no less wanting. For example, it does not explain why its challenge to various election processes comes after the election, and not before. Nor does it grapple with how voiding the presidential election results would impact every other race on the ballot, or consider the import of election statutes that may provide the 'exclusive remedy.' These are just a few of the glaring flaws that render the petition woefully deficient." - Judge Brian Hagerdorn

"This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter. The petition does not even justify the exercise of our original jurisdiction." - Judge Brian Hagerdorn

"Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research." - Judge Brian Hagerdorn

"But the real stunner here is the sought-after remedy. We are invited to invalidate the entire presidential election in Wisconsin by declaring it 'null'—yes, the whole thing. And there’s more. We should, we are told, enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from certifying the election so that Wisconsin’s presidential electors can be chosen by the legislature instead, and then compel the Governor to certify those electors. At least no one can accuse the petitioners of timidity." - Judge Brian Hagerdorn