Experts suggest that a standardized strategy of pre-election legal cases is now the norm.

More than 160 U.S. election-related lawsuits are currently being heard in courts across the country, and it's typical for this to happen during a presidential election, according to experts.

Over 165 election-related lawsuits have been filed, primarily addressing concerns about voter eligibility, ballot casting and counting procedures, and safeguarding election security to prevent alleged voter fraud.

Several legal analysts believe that the lawsuits filed by various individuals and groups challenging the 2020 presidential election results will not have a significant impact on the 2024 election. They describe the nature of the claims as typical, especially given the more than two decades since George W. Bush successfully defended his election victory against legal challenges.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley stated on Planet Chronicle Digital that he believes there will be a significant amount of litigation, but he was taken aback if there would be any jugular hints.

The seven battleground states with a combined total of 93 electoral votes, which are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have seen the most high-profile lawsuits to date. These states are expected to play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the election, favoring either Democrat Vice President Harris or Republican former President Trump.

The close race and recent court cases have raised concerns among observers that the lawsuits may disenfranchise voters, prevent one or the other candidate's supporters from participating in the election, or cast doubt on the voting results after the race is over.

But such concerns are likely unfounded, Turley notes.

He stated that out of the five presidential elections he has covered, no pre-election challenge had a significant effect.

Preliminary lawsuits are being used by both parties as a placeholder to fuel their narratives about the election and create a record of problems in swing states, which they can revisit after the election, according to Turley.

And it's not as if this is a new strategy.

Turley stated that the U.S. experienced a similar increase in 2016 and 2020, with the closest occurrence being Bush v. Gore prior to that.

After the election, the standard was to increase cases. Now, hundreds of attorneys are aligned beforehand, and the same trend is observed.

Experts note that while Trump's campaign filed an unusual number of 60 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results in key swing states, the practice itself is quite standard.

According to Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. assistant attorney general for the Southern District of New York, the early wave of court filings is actually beneficial for lawyers and judges due to the tight time frame between the elections, state election certifications, and Inauguration Day.

The early filings in many states were driven by the need to address the issue, with most of the lawsuits having been filed months earlier and now being heard in affected states, as stated by the individual to Planet Chronicle.

He stated that judges prefer to handle them swiftly.

"Courts are willing to act as referees in determining the rules for elections, but they avoid appearing to make the final decision on the outcome of the election."

To avoid the appearance of bias or political sway, it is better for them to rule on ahead of the election.

"To ensure that the legal system functions as intended and the investigation is conducted competently, it is necessary to litigate these issues before the election, according to McCarthy. This is because the time frame after the election is too short to conduct a thorough investigation, especially if the issue involves fraud."

Stay up-to-date with the latest news and exclusive interviews from the 2024 campaign trail at our Planet Chronicle Digital election hub.