Will judges determine who wins the presidential election? Geoff Livingston/Getty

Think about the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2020. Given the unprecedented variety of mail-in votes this election, Individuals might get up and nonetheless not know who gained the presidential contest between Republican President Donald J. Trump and Democratic challenger Joseph Biden.

The competition could possibly be so shut {that a} outcome can’t be recognized till mail-in ballots in a number of key states, maybe Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Florida, may be absolutely counted.

It’s conceivable that both candidate will refuse to simply accept the outcome, whether or not earlier than or after the counting of absentee or mail-in ballots. That would result in a number of lawsuits to cease the counting, to maintain counting or to power a recount.

Amid what’s going to seemingly be a flood of expenses, countercharges and lots of heated rhetoric from campaigns and supporters, there are prescribed authorized processes that may play out within the occasion of election challenges. Right here is how that may seemingly work.

The place challenges start – and sometimes finish

With only some exceptions, states run elections. By advantage of Article 1, Part Four of the Structure, state regulation governs virtually each side of the electoral course of, together with most elements of voter eligibility, the placement and hours of polling locations, candidate entry to the poll and the members of the state’s Electoral Faculty.

Consequently, electoral challenges should start – and sometimes will finish – in state courts, which can apply that state’s legal guidelines.

A candidate who needs to problem the end in any explicit state should first establish what provision of state regulation the election didn’t fulfill. In a intently contested nationwide election, the place the leads to some states are unsure and could also be for a lot of days, this may seemingly end in a number of circumstances being filed concurrently in a number of states, and by each main get together candidates.

Congress has additionally supplied that every state should have a mechanism for resolving any disputes that come up and that the state’s willpower “shall be conclusive.”

Typically, because of this state regulation, as interpreted and utilized by state courts, will decide which candidate wins that state’s electoral votes.

Ordinarily, a choice by a state’s highest court docket about how you can apply a state regulation can’t be appealed to a federal court docket. In such a case, the ultimate choice in an election problem rests with the state’s supreme court docket.

The 2000 presidential contest between George W. Bush, left, and Al Gore, proper, ended with a Supreme Courtroom choice.

Chris Hondros/Getty

How one can get to federal court docket

As seen within the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, nevertheless, there are occasions when a federal court docket can hear an election-related case.

For a contested election case to be taken up by a federal court docket, there should be an allegation that federal constitutional rights, reminiscent of 14th Modification claims to equal safety or due technique of regulation, have been violated.

Equally, if an individual alleges that their proper to vote was abridged due to their race or shade, that case can be heard in a federal court docket underneath the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is predicated on the 15th Modification.

Bush v. Gore was the fruits of quite a few lawsuits triggered by the shut vote in Florida. After each campaigns filed lawsuits in varied state courts, the Florida Supreme Courtroom determined to increase the hand-counting of votes till Nov. 26, 2000, eight days after the state’s statutory deadline for certifying the election outcomes to Congress. The Bush marketing campaign challenged that call within the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.

In a 5-Four opinion, the Supreme Courtroom dominated that the mandated recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Courtroom violated the equal safety clause.

The Supreme Courtroom reasoned that the failure of Florida courts to determine a uniform commonplace for figuring out authorized from unlawful votes in a recount created the potential for totally different requirements being utilized by totally different counties. The court docket concluded that this was a violation of 14th Modification rights to due course of and equal safety of the regulation.

The Orlando Sentinel struggled to report the shut leads to a contested presidential election.

AP Photograph/Peter Cosgrove

‘The individuals’s will’

Though the info of Bush v. Gore had been distinctive and messy, because the court docket itself famous, it isn’t tough to foresee one and even a number of comparable challenges arising within the 2020 election. And the place the lawsuits concerned in Bush v. Gore all originated in Florida, this time the chaos might attain throughout a number of states.

Certainly, many specialists foresee the potential for lawsuits in a number of key states this November. Relying upon the character of the declare made by the get together bringing the lawsuit, many – if not most – of those circumstances will originate in state courts, and at just about the identical time.

However it’s also fairly seemingly, as occurred within the 2000 election, that some – although not all – of the choices in these circumstances might be appealed to the Supreme Courtroom as a result of one get together may declare the choice violated the Structure.

This units up a state of affairs the place the result of the election might activate a number of court docket choices, a few of them involving state courts.

[Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.]

And that might result in a political downside.

Within the 2000 election, the Supreme Courtroom’s choice successfully settled the election, however solely as a result of each events and the individuals selected to simply accept the choice – or extra exactly, selected to simply accept the court docket’s authority to make the choice.

Whether or not the general public would settle for an electoral outcome decided by a state supreme court docket, or some mixture of state court docket and federal court docket choices, appears far more uncertain. Furthermore, in some states, supreme court docket judges are elected. A subset of these are partisan elections, the place judicial candidates run underneath a celebration affiliation, elevating the prospect that a few of these choices will seem like politically motivated.

Certainly, 20 years after Bush v. Gore, in an period of hyperpartisanship, it doesn’t appear apparent that the general public would – and even ought to – settle for the Supreme Courtroom’s legitimacy as a impartial adjudicator.

The latest loss of life of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg highlights a easy truth: The Supreme Courtroom is itself a crucial difficulty of intense partisan battle within the 2020 election.

If Ginsburg’s seat shouldn’t be stuffed earlier than the election – and, as a constitutional scholar, I imagine there are compelling causes it shouldn’t be – then an eight-justice court docket may cut up 4-Four within the imaginary case of Biden v. Trump. Such a choice may look to residents like get together politics wearing black robes somewhat than an train in constitutional motive.

Bush v. Gore triggered a nationwide debate not solely about what the Structure means, but additionally concerning the well being and well-being of the American polity. As I’ve written elsewhere, “Political democracies don’t select their leaders by judicial fiat. They elect them, often by political majorities.”

And as Supreme Courtroom Justice Stephen Breyer notes, “the individuals’s will is what elections are about.”

John E. Finn doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or organisation that will profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their educational appointment.