Trump just lost another big elections case in a key swing state

President Donald Trump is focused on Michigan, a key swing state that he cited in his July speech falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and which is likely to be a target if he seizes ballots during the midterm elections. Yet a Michigan jurist, Judge Randy Wallace, announced on Wednesday that Michigan Republicans will not be able to wage a lawsuit to make it easier for Trump supporters to make frivolous claims of voter fraud.

"In a victory for voters, a Michigan judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that sought to make it easier for partisan poll challengers to dispute voter eligibility and interrupt the state’s ballot-counting process," reported Democracy Docket's Matt Cohen on Wednesday. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Randy Wallace found that the complaint was 'barred by laches,' meaning the RNC waited too long to file its lawsuit, leaving election officials too little time to implement changes before voters head to the polls for November’s midterms.

Cohen explained that "poll challengers are citizens appointed by political parties and nonpartisan groups to observe the ballot-counting process at polling places. Challengers differ from poll watchers in that they have the authority to challenge a voter’s eligibility or question election administration procedures if they have good reason to believe something is wrong."
He added that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has "aimed to make it more difficult for poll challengers to lodge frivolous challenges that delay or disrupt the ballot-counting process."

In his ruling, Wallace expressed dismay at the methods used by the RNC in attempting to sneak in rules to make it easier to overturn valid votes before the state could have a chance to effectively respond.

"This Court finds that because of plaintiffs' unreasonable delay in filing their complaint in this matter, there is not a reasonable amount of time, after the exhaustion of appeals, for election officials to comply with the mechanics and complexities that the relief requested would create," Wallace wrote, citing case law to prove his point.

"Plaintiffs have failed to rebut the presumption of laches, as it applies to the primary election," he added, citing additional case law. "Further, even if this Court accepts plaintiffs' argument about declaratory relief pertaining to the general election and thereafter, plaintiffs failed to bring this case at a proper time, as explained in this opinion."

Ultimately he concluded that the "defendants have demonstrated that they would be prejudiced as a result of plaintiffs' delay in filing the complaint. Thus, plaintiffs' complaint is barred by laches."