As the U.S. inches closer to the November 5 presidential election, courts in key battleground states are scrambling to accelerate legal proceedings that could determine the race’s outcome. With memories of contentious lawsuits from previous cycles still fresh, judges are putting fast-track measures in place to avoid protracted legal disputes that might delay results.
Arizona became the latest battleground to implement special judicial rules for handling election-related lawsuits, ensuring swift resolutions. The Arizona Supreme Court issued an order instructing trial courts to prioritize cases about the election outcome, including vote recounts and disputes over presidential electors, giving ample time for appeals before the final certification deadlines.
“This judicial priority is crucial during a presidential election,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer emphasized in the directive.
Arizona, along with other pivotal states, is expected to play a critical role in deciding the contest between Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democratic incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. Both parties have already filed pre-emptive lawsuits nationwide, setting the stage for a fierce post-election legal landscape.
In 2020, Trump’s campaign and allies launched more than 60 lawsuits in a bid to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden, all of which failed. Now, his supporters are preparing for similar legal challenges, this time focusing on issues like mail-in ballot procedures and concerns about potential noncitizen voting.
Other battleground states are also taking steps to preempt legal chaos. In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court temporarily adjusted its rules to ensure election appeals are resolved within three days instead of ten, requiring briefs to be submitted within 24 hours of any ruling. Meanwhile, Michigan’s judiciary is streamlining communication procedures to ensure election-related disputes are escalated efficiently, including after-hours emergency filings.
Legal experts see these preparations as lessons learned from the aftermath of the 2020 election. “These measures aim to wrap up election litigation before federal deadlines for certifying electors,” explained James Gardner, an expert in election law.
Courts are also bracing for heightened security risks, anticipating potential threats against judges during the tense post-election period. A federal judiciary official recently warned that judges could face increased danger amid the rising national tension.
“Planning ahead for smooth litigation is just smart,” noted Justin Levitt, an election law scholar, reflecting on the courts’ proactive stance. Levitt, who previously advised the White House on democracy policy, added that these orders are designed to prevent the legal turmoil seen in past elections from dragging on.
With the stakes high and the timeline tight, courts across the country are determined to keep the gears of democracy turning—swiftly and securely—come November.
