Another potential path to contesting the 2024 election is through the judiciary, a concept that has been increasing in prevalence in the 21st century.  There are two major ways that the judiciary could be used to contest the election in 2024: through state courts and through the Supreme Court.  Based on both the elections of 2000 and 2024, both have a strong history of being used to contest an election, and some current signs point to their use in the upcoming election.

To begin with, the state courts are extremely likely to play a role in the election.  That a court case about the election will be brought in a state court somewhere seems likely, but the effect these potential cases could have on the outcome of the election cannot be predicted.  Historically, however, state courts have played a major role in plans to contest an election.  In 2000, for example, the challenges to the Florida vote count which eventually were resolved before the Supreme Court were initially brought up in State courts, and in local Federal courts.  Additionally, in 2020 Donald Trump’s campaign filed a number of lawsuits in more than seven states challenging vote counts in those states. Based on these trends, it would not be unexpected to see more local challenges in the 2024 election.  In fact, many states are gearing up to deal with these challenges.  While the cases Trump brought before the courts in 2020 did not substantially affect the outcome of the election, the cases brought in 2000 caused the issue to go before the Supreme Court to be ultimately decided, meaning that local cases in 2024 could have a huge effect on the outcome of the election.  Also, the 2020 lower court cases may not have changed the electoral results, but they did add to the mistrust of the electoral process that fueled other components of the 2020 election, such as challenges in Congress, and violence on January 6th.

The other component of a judicial challenge to the 2024 election could involve the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court had the final word on the election in 2000, and many consider that a possibility today.  While the court claims to have created zero precedent by deciding Bush v. Gore, the realty is they have set a procedural precedent, leading many Americans to view the court as the natural decider of contested elections.  While this is a departure from previous historical trends, where contested elections were decided in the legislature, it is important to recognize the new trend set up by the 2000 election.  One potential complication to deciding the election in front of the Supreme Court is that the Court is unlikely to want to hear the case, as no decision that the Court makes can satisfy large parts of the country, which could further damage the legitimacy of a court who is already facing a crisis of legitimacy in the public view.

So, while some sort of judicial challenge is likely, it is hard to know what effect court cases could have on the election.  The election of 2000 tells us that cases, both local and before the Supreme Court, can fundamentally alter the outcome of an election, while 2020 tells us how cases in the lower courts (that do not end up having an effect on electoral returns) can contribute to electoral mistrust and other avenues of contestation.  There may not be a silver lining to judicial challenges, but the overall message remains the same: watch what happens in the courts after the 2024 election closely, as it is very possible for it to play a major role in the outcome of the election.