Republican officials are initiating fresh legal actions regarding the regulations for the 2024 election, specifically targeting the voting methods they wish their followers to employ.

Republican leaders are urging their followers to vote by mail in the upcoming significant presidential election, despite their party’s efforts to pass laws and file lawsuits that would impede the counting of such votes.

The Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party have filed a lawsuit against the state of Mississippi in order to put an end to its current policy of accepting absentee ballots that are received up to five working days after the election. Meanwhile, in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and other Republican organizations have contested the inclusion of absentee ballot envelopes that lack a date, and have been successful in their challenges thus far. The Republican Party (GOP) has intervened in legal actions in Ohio, Georgia, and Florida to support and uphold limitations on vote drop boxes that were implemented by Republican legislators. These limits are currently being contested by left-leaning parties. In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers have implemented a new legislation for this year’s elections that eliminates the previous three-day grace period for accepting most mail-in ballots.

Despite facing legislative and judicial challenges to early voting, the GOP’s leadership remains committed to implementing a strong initiative to encourage Republicans to submit their ballots ahead of time. This can be done through either in-person early voting or by mail, as part of a campaign called “Bank Your Vote.”

The party faces a challenging task of striking a delicate balance between narrowing the Democrats’ advantage in mail-in voting and satisfying their presumed presidential nominee, Donald Trump, who continues to unfoundedly claim that mail-in voting leads to election corruption and contributed to his loss in 2020. Recently, during a rally in Wisconsin, Trump made a commitment to “safeguard” the elections by aiming to limit voting to a single day. On Friday, Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are scheduled to make a significant statement about election integrity at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence.

“Has the president been consistently steadfast recently?” Michael Whatley, who was just appointed as the head of the Republican National Committee under the Trump administration, made a statement on Fox News. “His statement indicates that our ultimate goal is to have voting exclusively on Election Day.” However, that statement does not align with the legal regulations.

Whatley vowed to “question the regulations, and once they are established, we will strive to exploit them to our benefit.”

Since assuming leadership of the party, Whatley, who previously held the position of the party’s chief legal advisor, has articulated a proactive strategy for election litigation. This strategy encompasses cases that not only target mail voting but also seek to expand the requirement of identification for casting a ballot. Additionally, Whatley’s approach involves questioning the adequacy of voter roll maintenance by election officials and opposing local jurisdictions that have allowed noncitizens to vote.

Republican attorneys have initiated a range of lawsuits in different parts of the country, targeting various election standards. The significance of these cases, as assessed by election law experts, varies. Headlines that highlight the party’s efforts to counter the former president’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud are just as important as obtaining judicial victories that could impact the conduct of the 2024 election.

However, Republicans are also aiming to provide a clear message to election authorities and their own party’s supporters that the party’s legal representatives are diligently observing voting protocols.

“During the 2020 election, Republican Party officials strongly felt that the Republican National Committee (RNC) was outperformed in terms of legal strategy,” stated Rick Hasen, a renowned election specialist at UCLA’s law school. On this occasion, he remarked, “They are displaying a considerable level of assertiveness and taking initiative.”

In the previous presidential election, there was a significant increase in the number of election law cases, reaching a record-breaking total of over 400 cases in 2020 according to Hasen. This surge was partly due to legal disputes in court regarding the proper conduct of elections during the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, there were numerous unsuccessful lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters after the election, aiming to invalidate his defeat.

As Republicans prepare for another election cycle filled with several lawsuits, it is not imperative for them to win a majority of these legal cases, according to Hasen. “They are attempting to appease the Trumpian base by demonstrating their efforts to investigate alleged fraud.”

Derek Muller, an election law professor at the University of Notre Dame, observed that the growing investment in election litigation has led to a greater inclination to pursue legal cases with limited chances of success. This trend is evident among both Democrats and various ideological groups.

“Previously, individuals had to carefully choose which conflicts to engage in due to constraints on resources and legal representation. Consequently, they focused on matters that were perceived to have significant consequences,” Muller explained. Now, election litigators no longer need to be selective.

RNC officials recently informed CNN via email that they have collaborated with over 20 law firms to initiate legal action in crucial areas. Additionally, they have appointed election integrity political directors and counsels within 13 pivotal states. In addition, the party is actively engaged in the recruitment and training of a substantial number of poll watchers and workers to oversee and supervise election proceedings.

“It is imperative that we ensure the presence of observers and attorneys in every voting room and every room where votes are being counted,” Whatley stated during the Fox interview. “We desire to ensure the presence of our personnel in the room to guarantee its security.”

Revisiting the disputes of 2020 around mail-in voting
The Republican National Committee (RNC) claims to have been involved in over 80 election-related issues during this election cycle. However, critics of the party argue that Republicans are exaggerating the extent of their involvement in legal matters. Nevertheless, the GOP is engaging in both offensive and defensive strategies: initiating legal actions to contest voting practices that Republicans argue are biased against them, while also participating in other legal battles to protect election regulations that were enacted by GOP legislatures against challenges brought by the opposing side.

Republican lawyers have expanded their legal campaign against mail voting to states that are not traditionally considered key battlegrounds in presidential elections. Furthermore, Republicans have filed a lawsuit contesting the significant expansion of mail voting implemented by New York lawmakers in the previous year, in addition to the case that focuses on Mississippi’s deadline for receiving mail-in ballots beyond the election day.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over half of the states, including important states like Pennsylvania in the presidential election, permit absentee or mail-in voting without requiring a specific reason. Eight states, namely California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, have implemented a system where all elections can be performed exclusively through mail-in voting.

Despite the increasing use of mail-in voting, recent polling indicates a significant decline in Republican support for this practice.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in January, only 28% of Republican and GOP-leaning Americans expressed support for universal mail-in voting, a significant decrease from over half of this group in 2018. In comparison, the Pew survey reveals that 84% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Americans now approve the technique of no-excuse postal balloting.

The Republican Party is currently grappling with the consequences of the pandemic and former President Trump’s belief that mail voting is susceptible to fraud. This has turned mail voting into a divisive issue along party lines, despite the fact that Republicans previously had a favorable view of this technique. This situation is evident in both the Mississippi and New York cases, as well as in several other instances. The ongoing disputes in 2020 around mail voting, namely concerning the verification of ballots and the utilization of drop boxes for collection, are being replicated in cases involving the participation of the RNC in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and other locations.

Promoting legal cases that specifically address voting by non-citizens
However, the party has engaged in other legal actions that relate to pre-pandemic concerns, such as voter ID and the alleged risk of non-citizens voting.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed litigation against Arizona election officials for their modification of the proof-of-citizenship requirement in the state. Additionally, the party has initiated legal actions, which have yielded varying outcomes, to contest local regulations permitting non-citizens to participate in elections. The legal emphasis on voting rights for non-citizens aligns with the Republicans’ endeavor to prioritize immigration as a key aspect of the 2024 campaign.

The RNC in New York City effectively contested a statute that permitted approximately 800,000 noncitizens, who are legal permanent residents of the United States, to vote in local elections. An appeal court has upheld a lower court’s decision to invalidate the law. The New York City Council has now filed an appeal with the highest court in the state. However, a judge dismissed a case brought by Republicans against a non-citizen voting ordinance in a Vermont city.

Recent legal actions claim that voter registration lists are excessively inflated.
RNC lawsuits in Nevada and Michigan have focused on allegations that the voter registration lists in crucial counties in each state are unusually high, prompting efforts to compel election authorities to invalidate voter registrations prior to this year’s elections.

Republicans are employing a technique that has already faced criticism in federal court to support their assertion that the states’ voter rolls are inflated. Their legal actions involve comparing the current voter registration figures with population estimates obtained from an ongoing survey undertaken by the Census Bureau. This survey examines a period of five years that commenced several years ago.

Justin Levitt, a voting rights adviser in the Biden White House and a specialist on elections and constitutional law at Loyola Law School, pointed out various issues with the methodology used. One of the problems is that the objects being compared do not measure the same thing. “It is akin to asserting, ‘The readings on my thermometer do not align with those on my clock; hence, there must be an issue with one of them.'”

The election administrators in Nevada and Michigan, who are also Democrats, assert that the cases are baseless. A representative from the RNC did not provide a response to an inquiry regarding the criticism of the methodology.

Republicans may be strategically pursuing voter roll litigation, with the intention of eventually bringing a case before a conservative US Supreme Court that is inclined to thoroughly examine whether states are adhering to federal voter list maintenance legislation.

However, in the near future, it seems improbable that these cases will lead to significant purges prior to the November election. This is because the slow progress of legal proceedings contradicts federal law, which forbids large-scale removals within 90 days of an election. Additionally, a legal principle discourages significant alterations to voting policies in the proximity of an election.

“It is highly unlikely that any court order will be implemented prior to the 2024 election,” stated Muller.