From ABCNews: A 'Twitterized Bush v Gore 2.0'? It's possible, election experts say

This touches on the impact the courts have had, and will continue to have on the election.

- Click here for the article.

The 2020 presidential election is already one of the most litigious in American history with the looming potential of a conclusion even more chaotic than the Bush v. Gore battle of 20 years ago.

Even before any ballots have been counted, there have been more than 300 active election-related lawsuits about changes to voting rules during the pandemic filed across 44 states -- an unprecedented number -- according to the Stanford-MIT Project on a Healthy Election.

Officials expect another tidal wave of legal challenges to hit once vote counting begins on Nov. 3, contesting ballot deadlines and processing rules, voting machine glitches and allegations of voter intimidation at the polls.

A record surge of mail ballots due to the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to delay tabulation of results in many states, potentially for days after in-person voting ends.

“You know there’s going to be some issue. You don’t necessarily know what that is,” said New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver during a recent Georgetown University forum on election integrity.

“It’s been very hard, complicated, challenging,” Oliver added. “We’re all going to be really happy and proud when we get through the final days.”

. . . Judiciary cautious about election intervention

Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to steer the court away from political matters close to an election, in part to preserve the court’s reputation as above the partisan fray. That reputation took a hit after the divisive ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

State election laws “should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Roberts ally, in a statement explaining the court's action on South Carolina witness signature requirement. “Federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election.”

“The Chief sees the Court as an institution and has an institutional prerogative, but I think the entire Court would be skeptical” of intervention in the election, said Erin Hawley, a senior legal fellow at the Independent Women’s Law Center. “From time immemorial, judges have been cautious of weighing into intensely political matters.”