In a new Op-Ed for “The Hill” legal icon Alan Dershowitz tackles the question of whether President Trump can win his election challenges in court.
Dershowitz distinguishes the lawsuit in Pennsylvania as a “wholesale” challenge based on a matter of constitutional law.
He writes the lawsuit “does not need evidence or a trial. It was already before the Supreme Court, which was divided over the issue. All that is necessary is further briefings and a final decision.”
Dershowitz categorizes Trump’s lawsuits in other states as “retail” in nature, and states for them to prevail would take a presentation of evidence and “messy” challenges that could take a long time.
He writes “they would have to show that there were enough disputed votes to make a difference in the final outcome of the election in a given state. That will not be an easy task to do.”
Dershowitz writes in his conclusion “for Trump to reverse the outcome of the election, he needs to prove that there were enough invalid votes in enough states to win the 270 electoral votes for victory. Turning around the results in any particular state, even in Pennsylvania, will not do that. He must prove a difference in several states. That depends on which states, if any, he wins in court and then how many electoral votes they have.”
He adds “it is a daunting battle. For 2000, all Bush had to do was to focus on Florida, and he could do that as a matter of wholesale constitutional law rather than retail evidentiary challenges. That decision serves as only a partial precedent for all the current cases.”