How have courts ruled so far on prosecutions of people who signed alternate elector certificates in 2020?
Executive summary
Courts have issued a mix of rulings in state and federal matters involving the 2020 “alternate” or “fake” electors: several criminal prosecutions were brought in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, but judges have dismissed or delayed some charges on procedural grounds (venue, jurisdiction, sufficiency of intent) while appeals and venue fights continue; in other states (Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin) prosecutors either have not filed charges or have faced conflicting internal memos about legality [1] Trumpfakeelectors_plot" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[2] [3] [4]. The National Archives treated the alternate certificates as unofficial, and evolving state-court decisions show the cases are being winnowed by technical and evidentiary questions as well as by broader political dynamics [5] [2] [6].
1. Criminal indictments and active prosecutions — pockets of accountability and delay
State prosecutors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada have pursued criminal charges against people who signed alternate certificates, producing arraignments, indictments and at least one trial setting while other cases are tangled in pretrial litigation; for example, Arizona arraigned several fake electors and set a trial date for January 2026, and Nevada has pursued forgery charges against six alternate electors [1] [6]. Lawfare’s tracking shows that these prosecutions coexist with larger indictments against Trump allies in Georgia’s election-subversion case and parallel state efforts to hold participants accountable [3].
2. Procedural rulings that have trimmed or paused prosecutions
Several courts have curtailed prosecutions on procedural grounds: Nevada saw an early jurisdictional dismissal in a Clark County court that prompted refiling in Carson City before the state supreme court later weighed in; venue fights have been pivotal in determining where a case can proceed [2] [6]. In Michigan, at least one state judge dismissed charges against alleged false electors for failure to prove criminal intent, a ruling that underscores how mens rea disputes can be decisive in these prosecutions [7].
3. Where prosecutions have not advanced — conditional certificates and non‑filings
In multiple states — notably Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin — prosecutors have either not filed criminal charges or the alternate certificates included conditional language that has complicated any accusation of clear fraud; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and other trackers report no charges in those three states as of mid-2024, and documented conditional clauses in Pennsylvania and New Mexico are part of why prosecutors have hesitated [1] [2]. Wisconsin’s own prosecutors produced a memo concluding the alternate-elector plan did not breach state law before civil claims proceeded, adding another layer of legal ambiguity [4] [8].
4. Civil litigation and evidentiary rulings — another venue for accountability
Beyond criminal courts, civil suits have progressed: Wisconsin courts allowed many civil claims to proceed against ten fake electors under theories such as nuisance and quo warranto, showing another path plaintiffs use when criminal charges stall or are uncertain [8]. The presence of unofficial certificates collected by the National Archives as “unaccepted” evidence further supports civil and administrative narratives that these documents did not carry legal force, even as they seeded criminal investigations [5] [2].
5. Appeals, removals and the federal dimension — complexity increases with venue shifts
Defense teams have repeatedly litigated venue, removal to federal court, and other pretrial defenses; the federal-state overlap — including motions to move cases into federal court or to argue federal preemption — has produced appellate rulings that shape whether prosecutions can proceed in state courts, and judges have on occasion rejected removal attempts [3]. That procedural thicket, combined with high-profile federal pardons announced in late 2025 covering many Trump allies (a move the reporting calls largely symbolic but consequential for federal exposure), complicates the legal landscape because pardons do not necessarily bar state prosecutions [9] [7].
6. What the rulings collectively mean now — unsettled, technical, and jurisdictionally fragmented
Taken together, court rulings so far show no uniform outcome: prosecutors have secured indictments and movement toward trial in some states while judges have dismissed, transferred or delayed other matters for lack of jurisdiction, venue problems, or insufficient proof of criminal intent; several key states never advanced charges or relied on conditional language in the certificates, and civil suits and appeals continue to define accountability beyond headline indictments [1] [2] [8]. Reporting indicates the arc of these cases will be driven as much by procedure and forum selection as by substantive proof that signers intended to defraud or obstruct official processes [10] [3].