Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence

Lawsuit filed by several right-wing groups seeking to invalidate state election laws in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and to prevent VP Pence and the U.S. Congress from certifying the presidential election results. The court denied the requested relief. In its order, the court also threatened to refer the matter for potential discipline of Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. The court then ordered Plaintiffs' attorney to defend himself against discipline, forcing that attorney to hire lawyers of his own to defend him before the judge. Ultimately, the trial judge found the lawyer's defenses unpersuasive and referred him to the state's Committee on Grievances for possible sanction and punishment.

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


Trump's Lawyers

Court Filings

Name Filed On Type Status
Complaint 12/22/20 Complaint Dismissed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12/22/20 Motion Denied
Memo in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12/22/20 Motion Denied
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction 01/04/21 Order Filed
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 01/07/21 Notice Filed
Minute Order for Plaintiff's Counsel to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Disciplined 01/07/21 Order Filed
Kaardal's Response to Order to Show Cause 02/05/21 Opposition Filed
Order Referring Plaintiff's Counsel to Grievance Committee 02/19/21 Order Filed