Voter suppression lawsuits Thomas W. King III worked on
| Name | Filed On | Court | Finalized | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metcalfe v. Wolf (Decertification) | 12/04/20 | State | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar (Dem Counties Challenge) | 11/09/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Hamm v. Boockvar | 11/03/20 | State | Yes | Trump won |
| Barnette v. Lawrence | 11/03/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
| Parnell v. Allegheny BOE (PA Poll Watcher Intervention) | 10/16/20 | Federal | Yes | Trump Lost |
People are saying
"Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 4, 2020, which was 11 days after the statutory deadline." -
President Judge Hannah Leavitt
"Voters, not lawyers, choose the President. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections." -
Judge Stephanos Bibas
"And the Campaign's charges are selective. Though Pennsylvanians cast 2.6 million mail-in ballots, the Campaign challenges 1.5 million of them. It cherry-picks votes cast in 'Democratic-heavy counties' but not 'those in Republican-heavy counties.'" -
Judge Stephanos Bibas
"'Upon information and belief' is a lawyerly way of saying that the Campaign does not know that something is a fact but just suspects it or has heard it." -
Judge Stephanos Bibas
"The Campaign's claims have no merit. . . And it never claims fraud or that votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too." -
Judge Stephanos Bibas
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." -
Judge Stephanos Bibas
"Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. . . . This is simply not how the Constitution works." -
Judge Matthew W. Brann
"Plaintiffs' only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein's Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent." -
Judge Matthew W. Brann
"In the United States of America, this [lack of legal arguments and proof] cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more." -
Judge Matthew W. Brann
"One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome [disenfranchising almost seven million voters], a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption . . .. That has not happened." -
Judge Matthew W. Brann