How did the 2024 election lawsuits compare to those in the 2020 election?

1. Summary of the results

The 2024 post-election litigation landscape resembled but also diverged from 2020 in scale and focus: multiple trackers and studies report high volumes of cases in both cycles, with some counts indicating that 2024 produced nearly as many or, by other tallies, even more filings than 2020. One dataset characterized election-related state and federal filings across cycles as showing a sustained level of litigation around election administration and voting processes ^[1]. Ballotpedia’s count of over 130 cases in 2024 emphasized disputes over voter eligibility and overseas voting ^[2], while a separate analysis labeled 2024 as among the most litigated, with hundreds of suits across many states ^[3]. Collectively, the sources show continued judicial engagement on voting rules, with strategic differences in timing and issue emphasis compared with 2020.

Analysts identify a pattern of actors and legal strategies that echoed 2020 but were adapted in 2024. Several reports note that many suits in 2024 were filed earlier in the cycle, reflecting attempts to shape rules before Election Day rather than primarily contesting results afterward ^[4]. The mix of claims included challenges to ballot access, absentee and overseas voting protocols, voter registration lists, and election administration decisions ^{[1] [2]}. Another strand of reporting highlights that a sizable share of litigation was advanced by Republican-aligned plaintiffs alleging fraud or seeking to tighten eligibility rules, while other suits came from voting-rights groups and jurisdictions defending administrative practices ^[4].

Taken together, the evidence portrays a litigation ecosystem that persisted and evolved since 2020. Sources diverge on totals—some emphasize a near-equal number of cases between 2020 and 2024 ^{[1] [2]}, while others argue 2024 was the “most litigated” in history with 306 suits across 45 states ^[3]. The difference often reflects counting methodology (state vs. federal, pre‑ vs. post‑election, meritorious vs. dismissed cases). What is consistent across sources is that litigation remained a central tool for political actors seeking to influence how votes were cast, counted, and validated in both cycles ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual points are underemphasized or missing from summaries that simply compare raw case counts. First, case filings alone do not measure impact: many suits are quickly dismissed, settled, or resolved without changing election outcomes, while a smaller number of high‑stakes decisions can have outsized effects on administration and turnout ^[1]. Second, counting conventions vary: some tallies include state administrative appeals and local court actions, while others restrict counts to federal litigation; these methodological differences drive divergent headlines about whether 2024 equaled or exceeded 2020 in litigation volume ^{[2] [3]}. Third, the partisan origin and funding behind suits matter; some sources trace a greater share of 2024 filings to organized party litigation efforts aiming to preempt rules, which shifts the profile from reactive to proactive litigation ^[4].

Alternative viewpoints also stress topic concentration differences: whereas 2020 litigation frequently targeted vote tabulation and certification in immediate post-election contests, 2024 saw more pre‑emptive suits on voter eligibility, overseas ballots, and procedural rules—tactics intended to shape the electoral environment before votes were cast ^{[2] [4]}. Other observers highlight geographic variation: litigation intensity clustered in battleground and administratively complex states, meaning national counts obscure local legal ecosystems where the stakes and legal doctrines differed markedly ^[1]. Finally, legal outcomes matter: scholars and practitioners point out that precedent, judicial receptivity, and the Supreme Court’s docket can change the practical effects of otherwise similar filings ^{[5] [6]}.

Those contextual frames suggest a more textured comparison than headline counts imply. It’s also crucial to note questions left open by available reporting: how many 2024 suits made new legal law versus reiterating settled doctrines, how many were pro‑seizure versus defensive, and which cases produced durable policy shifts. Some sources imply the GOP increased early-case filings sharply in 2024 compared with 2020 ^[3], a fact that, if verified with consistent methodology, signals strategic adaptation rather than mere replication. Without harmonized counting rules and outcome analysis, simple numerical comparisons risk overstating continuity or change.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Claims portraying 2024 litigation as simply “the same” as 2020 can be misleading by omission, and may advantage actors who benefit from narratives of equivalence or escalation. Portraying parity in raw counts without clarifying case types, dispositions, and timing can inflate perceptions that courts were decisive in determining winners, a framing that benefits parties seeking to legitimize pre‑election litigation or post‑election challenges ^[4]. Conversely, labeling 2024 as uniquely the “most litigated ever” without methodological transparency can serve advocates who aim to underscore systemic crisis and mobilize political support, potentially exaggerating the legal system’s role relative to administrative procedures ^[3].

Bias also arises from selective source emphasis: outlets tracking organizational litigation dockets may highlight party‑led increases ^[3], while court‑centric datasets may emphasize case outcomes and dismissals ^[1]. Each choice steers readers toward different policy conclusions—whether reforms should restrict litigation, bolster administrative safeguards, or expand access. Additionally, the absence of dates and full methodological notes in many summaries creates room for cherry‑picked comparisons, such as counting pre‑election injunctions in one cycle but not another, and benefits stakeholders who wish to depict their legal strategy as either defensive or constitutionally necessary ^{[2] [4]}.

To evaluate factual claims responsibly, readers need standardized counts, outcome rates, and timing breakdowns; absent that, assertions about “nearly as high” or “most litigated” remain contingent on definitions and selective framing. The available materials point to both continuity and strategic evolution between 2020 and 2024, but they do not unambiguously establish a single narrative without clearer, consistently sourced metrics ^{[1] [2] [3]}.