CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/3/2023 1

Unsuccessful Suit to Require State Legislatures 

to Certify Presidential Election Results 

Wisconsin Voters Alliance v. Pence 

(James E. Boasberg, D.D.C. 1:20-cv-3791) 

A district judge denied relief in a federal suit filed in the district 

court for the District of Columbia seeking an order requiring state 

legislatures in five states to certify presidential election results. In 

addition to finding no merit to the complaint, the judge faulted the 

plaintiffs for naming as defendants officials in the five states over 

whom the court could not have personal jurisdiction. The judge also scolded the attorney for making no effort to serve the defendants, and the judge referred the plaintiffs’ attorney for discipline. 

Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Electoral College; 

enjoining certification; attorney discipline; election errors; laches. 

A federal complaint filed in the district court for the District of Columbia on 

December 22, 2020, sought a judicial order requiring state legislatures to certify the 2020 presidential election results for each state.1

 The plaintiffs were 

five organizations—one each in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, 

and Wisconsin—and eighteen individuals, including ten voters in the five 

states and eight office holders in four of the states.2 The defendants were the 

Vice President, the two houses of Congress, the Electoral College, and the 

governor and presiding officers for the two legislative houses of each of the 

five states.3

The complaint recited previous litigation in the Supreme Court: 

F. In 2020, Texas sued Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia 

in the U.S. Supreme Court to adjudicate election irregularities and 

improprieties. 

83. On December 7, 2020, Texas filed an original action in the U.S. 

Supreme Court, Case No. 20O155, against Pennsylvania, Michigan, 

Wisconsin and Georgia for election irregularities and improprieties. On 

December 9, Missouri and 16 other states filed a motion for leave to file 

an amicus curiae brief in support of Texas. On December 10, U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 other members submitted a motion 

for leave to file amicus brief in support of Texas. On December 11, the 

Supreme Court dismissed the original action in a text order: 

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is 

denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner 

in which another State conducts its elections.4

1. Complaint, Wis. Voters Alliance v. Pence, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2020), 

D.E. 1; Wis. Voters Alliance v. Harris, 28 F.4th 1282, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2022). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1; Wis. Voters Alliance v. Pence, 514 F. Supp. 3d 117, 119 

(D.D.C. 2021). 

3. Complaint, supra note 1; Wis. Voters Alliance, 514 F. Supp. 3d at 119. 

4. Complaint, supra note 1, at 32 (quoting Texas v. Pennsylvania, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 
Unsuccessful Suit to Require State Legislatures to Certify Presidential Election Results 

2 Federal Judicial Center 9/3/2023 

The proposed bill of complaint sought an order nullifying Electoral College appointments based on presidential election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.5

With their district-court complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.6

On January 4, 2021, Judge James E. Boasberg denied immediate relief: 

“the suit rests on a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution. 

It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States.”7

 The plaintiffs’ “central 

contention is flat-out wrong.”8

Judge Boasberg scolded the plaintiffs for procedural improprieties: 

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 preliminaryinjunction 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.9

And he scolded the plaintiffs for naming as defendants persons over whom 

the court clearly had no personal jurisdiction: “Plaintiffs cannot simply sue 

anyone they wish here in the District of Columbia. . . . [T]hey never explain 

how a court in this city can subject to its jurisdiction, say, the Majority Leader of the Wisconsin State Senate.”10

Judge Boasberg found 

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.11

On January 7, the day that Congress certified Joe Biden the winner of the 

presidential election, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case.12 Somewhat more than one month later, Judge Boasberg concluded that disciplinary 

1230 (2020)). 

5. Proposed Bill of Complaint at 39, No. 20O155 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2020), www.supremecourt. 

gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07%20 

FINAL.pdf. 

6. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Wis. Voters Alliance, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C. Dec. 

22, 2020), D.E. 2; Wis. Voters Alliance, 28 F.4th at 1283. 

7. Wis. Voters Alliance, 514 F. Supp. 3d at 119. 

8. Id. at 120. 

9. Id. at 119 (citation omitted); see Docket Sheet, Wis. Voters Alliance, No. 1:20-cv-3791 

(D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2020) (minute order, Dec. 23, 2020). 

10. Wis. Voters Alliance, 514 F. Supp. 3d at 120. 

11. Id. at 121–22. 

12. Notice, Wis. Voters Alliance, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C. Jan. 7, 2021), D.E. 16; Wis. 

Voters Alliance v. Harris, 28 F.4th 1282, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2022). 
Unsuccessful Suit to Require State Legislatures to Certify Presidential Election Results 

Federal Judicial Center 9/3/2023 3

referral was appropriate.13 Because the referral was not a final order, the 

court of appeals determined that it did not have jurisdiction over counsel’s 

attempted appeal.14

13. Opinion, Wis. Voters Alliance, No. 1:20-cv-3791 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2021), D.E. 23, 2021 

WL 686359; see David Wickert, Attorney in Ga. Election Suit May Face Discipline, Atlanta J.-

Const., Feb. 24, 2021, at 7A. 

14. Wis. Voters Alliance, 28 F.4th at 1283.