Introduction
The 2020 United States Presidential Election saw a significant amount of legal scrutiny, with President Donald Trump's campaign making numerous attempts to challenge the results. One of the most controversial aspects of this debate centered on the involvement of the Supreme Court. While the court played a crucial role in multiple cases, their decisions ultimately favored the continuation of the democratic process. This article explores the possible actions the Supreme Court could have taken to favor Trump and assesses the reality of such legal challenges.
The Supreme Court's Decision: Pennsylvania Election
One of the most notable legal controversies revolved around the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, particularly in Pennsylvania. The Trump campaign argued that the state had insufficient procedures to validate these ballots safely. Specifically, a constitutional theory was invoked to challenge the acceptance of mail-in ballots received after Election Day. However, upon further examination, the Supreme Court did not see enough evidence to justify reconsidering the election outcomes in Pennsylvania.
Impact and Outcome
The Supreme Court ultimately decided not to intervene in cases that would not change the election results. The mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, while provocative, did not shift the electoral balance in favor of Donald Trump. Furthermore, even if these ballots had had an impact, Pennsylvania's results would not decide the entire election, as the presidency is determined by the Electoral College, not a single state's vote total.
Strategic Futility: Altering Election Results
Despite the rhetoric, the Trump campaign's legal strategy never coherently developed a legal theory that could overturn election results in key battleground states. A comprehensive legal challenge would require changing the outcomes in at least two additional states (Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, or Michigan) beyond Pennsylvania, which is a non-starter given the existing evidence and court decisions.
Highlighted States and Legal Strategy
The Trump campaign made vague and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and irregularities in multiple states. However, each of these claims was either dismissed outright or failed to withstand scrutiny. For instance, the allegations in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan were found to be lacking in concrete evidence, and cases brought by the Trump team were either withdrawn or dismissed by the courts.
Closing Window of Opportunity
During the certification phase of the election, key states began to finalize and certify their election results. This process of certification further minimized the Supreme Court's ability to intervene. Any legal challenge at this stage would have to contend with the rapidly closing window of opportunity. Additionally, even for cases that had solid evidence, the Supreme Court would likely demand evidence that had been presented earlier, thus limiting the Trump campaign's options.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decisions played a significant role in the 2020 Presidential Election, but they ultimately did not tip the balance in favor of Donald Trump. The court’s conservative makeup, comprised of professional judges who require concrete evidence, meant that the legal arguments presented were insufficient to alter the election results. The court's decisions to dismiss the cases ultimately reflected the lack of a coherent legal theory and the absence of credible evidence to support any claims of widespread voter fraud.
Taking the Next Steps
Going forward, the focus should be on ensuring that future elections are fair, transparent, and resistant to manipulation. Both parties need to work towards a system that is trusted by all voters, reducing the likelihood of similar controversies and enhancing public confidence in the democratic process.