华盛顿——他们在威斯康辛州和宾夕法尼亚州为邮寄选票的截止日期而战，在北卡罗来纳州为证人要求而战。俄亥俄州正在努力解决投票箱的问题，因为德克萨斯州面临着法庭对提前投票额外天数的挑战。

衡量11月的焦虑选举就像统计最近几个月全国范围内数百起与投票相关的诉讼一样简单。这些案例涉及到美国投票过程的基本原则，包括投票和计票的方式，以及在选举过程中如何投票选举由冠状病毒大流行和一位拒绝承诺接受结果的总统所创造的。

诉讼更加重要，因为总统唐纳德·特朗普如果他的最新提名得到确认，选举可能会在一个明显倾向于共和党的最高法院结束。

“这位总统表示反对使用邮寄选票，而且似乎几乎预示着这场选举将由法院决定的不可避免性，”法律下的公民权利全国律师委员会执行主任克里斯汀·克拉克说。

周二，在第一场总统辩论中，特朗普展开了一场反对邮件投票的长期辩论，声称没有证据表明欺诈时机已经成熟，并暗示邮件投票可能被“操纵”。

“这将是一场你从未见过的骗局，”总统在谈到大流行引发的向邮件投票的大规模转移时说。

这些诉讼很可能预示着接下来会发生什么。共和党人表示，他们已经聘请了外部律师事务所，以及数千名准备就绪的志愿律师。民主党人宣布了一个重量级人物的法律战室，包括一对前律师将军。

这场比赛已经被认为是美国历史上诉讼最多的一次，这在很大程度上是由于邮件和缺席投票的大规模扩张。洛约拉法学院教授贾斯汀·莱维特，前司法部选举官员，已经统计了大约260起由冠状病毒引起的诉讼。共和党全国委员会表示，它参与了40多起诉讼，一个由首席民主党律师运营的网站列出了大约15个州值得关注的活跃案件。

民主党人正把精力集中在多个核心领域——确保邮寄选票的免费邮资，改革签名匹配法，允许社区组织等第三方收集选票，并确保选举日邮戳的选票可以计数。共和党人警告说，这些同样的要求为选民欺诈和混乱打开了大门，并反对今年11月放松选民投票规则的努力。

RNC首席法律顾问贾斯汀·里默尔在一次采访中说:“我们正努力防止这一过程中的混乱。”。"没有什么比在最后一刻重写一堆规则更混乱的了。"

但在过去的总统选举中，没有广泛的选民欺诈案例，包括2016年，当时特朗普声称竞选将受到操纵，俄罗斯人试图干预结果。

一些争议正在传统上不被视为选举战场的州展开，如蒙大拿州，那里有一场竞争激烈的美国参议院选举。周三，一名法官驳回了特朗普的连任竞选团队和共和党团体阻止各县主要通过邮件举行大选的努力。

但大多数密切关注的案件发生在被视为2020年争夺的州，可能对这场比赛至关重要。

这包括俄亥俄州，在那里，一个由投票团体和民主党人组成的联盟提起诉讼，要求将投票箱从每个县一个以上扩大到一个以上。另外，周一，一名联邦法官驳回了该州对选票和选票申请的签名匹配要求的修改，将胜利拱手让给了该州共和党选举负责人，他在本选举季陷入了诉讼。

在亚利桑那州，一名法官裁定，忘记在早期选票上签名的选民在选举后最多有五天时间来解决问题，现在可以向美国第九巡回上诉法院上诉。

周二，一家联邦上诉法院支持将威斯康辛州的缺席选票计数延长六天，只要这些选票的邮戳是在选举日之前。这项裁决至少给了该州的民主党人一个暂时的胜利，尽管如此，他们仍可以向美国最高法院上诉。在邻近的密歇根州，共和党正起诉试图推翻一项决定，该决定允许该州在选举后14天内计算缺席选票。

在竞争激烈的北卡罗莱纳州，选民们已经在努力应对缺席选票上要求证人签名的规定，RNC和特朗普的竞选委员会已经就新的选举指南提起诉讼，该指南将允许修改证人信息不完整的选票，而选民不必填写新的空白选票。

在爱荷华州，特朗普竞选团队和共和党团体在限制缺席投票的尝试中赢得了一系列全面的法律胜利，法官在三个县驳回了数万份缺席投票申请。本周，另一名法官支持一项新的共和党支持的法律，该法律将使各县更难处理缺席投票申请。

宾夕法尼亚州是一个特别活跃的地方。

共和党议员周一要求美国最高法院暂停该州最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决延长了接收和清点邮寄选票的截止日期。共和党人还反对州法院裁决的一部分，该裁决命令各县对在三天延长期内到达的选票进行计数，即使它们没有邮戳或清晰的邮戳。

与此同时，在联邦法院，共和党人正在起诉，除其他外，禁止投递箱或其他用于收集邮寄选票的网站。

最高法院本身已经被要求参与几起案件，就像今年4月一样，当时保守派法官阻止了民主党在威斯康星州初选期间扩大缺席投票的努力。

当然，在法庭上结束选举是有先例的。2000年，最高法院解决了佛罗里达州的重新计票争议，有效地将选举交给了共和党人乔治·布什。

在诉讼中代表布什的佛罗里达州律师巴里·理查德(Barry Richard)表示，不能保证最高法院会再次介入，也不能保证任何与选举有关的诉讼都会成为法庭需要解决的紧迫问题。

他说，当时和现在的一个显著区别是，两位候选人都没有提出不接受选举结果的可能性。

“在2000年，对于该系统的基本完整性从来没有任何疑问。理查德说:“两位候选人都没有对此提出质疑。“甚至没有人谈论落选的候选人是否会接受选举结果。这只是假设。”

Voting lawsuits pile up across US as election approaches

WASHINGTON -- They've been fighting in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over the cutoff date for counting mailed ballots, and in North Carolina over witness requirements. Ohio is grappling with drop boxes for ballots as Texas faces a court challenge over extra days of early voting.

Measuring the anxiety over the November election is as simple as tallying the hundreds of voting-related lawsuits filed across the country in recent months. The cases concern the fundamentals of the American voting process, including how ballots are cast and counted, during an electionmade unique by the coronavirus pandemic and by a president who refuses to commit to accepting the results.

The lawsuits are all the more important because President Donald Trumphas raised the prospect that the election may wind up before a Supreme Court with a decidedly Republican tilt if his latest nominee is confirmed.

“This is a president who has expressed his opposition to access to mail ballots and has also seemed to almost foreshadow the inevitability that this election will be one decided by the courts,” said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

That opposition was on display Tuesday during the first presidential debate when Trump launched into an extended argument against mail voting, claiming without evidence that it is ripe for fraud and suggesting mail ballots may be “manipulated.”

“This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen,” the president said of the massive shift to mail voting prompted by the pandemic.

The lawsuits are a likely precursor for what will come afterward. Republicans say they have retained outside law firms, along with thousands of volunteer lawyers at the ready. Democrats have announced a legal war room of heavyweights, including a pair of former solicitors general.

The race is already regarded as the most litigated in American history, due in large part to the massive expansion of mail and absentee voting. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections official, has tallied some 260 lawsuits arising from the coronavirus. The Republication National Committee says it's involved in more than 40 lawsuits, and a website operated by a chief Democrat lawyer lists active cases worth watching in about 15 states.

Democrats are focusing their efforts on multiple core areas — securing free postage for mail ballots, reforming signature-match laws, allowing ballot collection by third-parties like community organizations and ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day can count. Republicans warn that those same requests open the door to voter fraud and confusion and are countering efforts to relax rules on how voters cast ballots this November.

“We're trying to prevent chaos in the process,” RNC chief counsel Justin Riemer said in an interview. “Nothing creates more chaos than rewriting a bunch of rules at the last minute.”

But there have been no broad-based, sweeping examples of voter fraud during past presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump claimed the contest would be rigged and Russians sought to meddle in the outcome.

Some of the disputes are unfolding in states not traditionally thought of as election battlegrounds, such as Montana, where there is a highly competitive U.S. Senate race on the ballot. A judge Wednesday rejected an effort by Trump’s reelection campaign and Republican groups to block counties from holding the general election mostly by mail.

But most of the closely watched cases are in states perceived as up-for-grabs in 2020 and probably crucial to the race.

That includes Ohio, where a coalition of voting groups and Democrats have sued to force an expansion of ballot drop boxes from more than just one per county. Separately on Monday, a federal judge rejected changes to the state's signature-matching requirement for ballots and ballot applications, handing a win to the state’s Republican election chief who has been engulfed with litigation this election season.

In Arizona, a judge's ruling that voters who forget to sign their early ballots have up to five days after the election to fix the problem is now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a six-day extension for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. The ruling gave Democrats in the state at least a temporary victory in a case that could nonetheless by appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In neighboring Michigan, the GOP is suing to try to overturn a decision that lets the state count absentee ballots up to 14 days after the election.

In battleground North Carolina, where voters are already struggling with rules requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots, the RNC and Trump’s campaign committee have sued over new election guidance that will permit ballots with incomplete witness information to be fixed without the voter having to fill out a new blank ballot.

In Iowa, the Trump campaign and Republican groups have won a series of sweeping legal victories in their attempts to limit absentee voting, with judges throwing out tens of thousands of absentee ballot applications in three counties. This week, another judge upheld a new Republican-backed law that will make it harder for counties to process absentee ballot applications.

Pennsylvania has been a particular hive of activity.

Republican lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to put a hold on a ruling by the state's highest court that extends the deadline for receiving and counting mailed-in ballots. Republicans also object to a portion of the state court’s ruling that orders counties to count ballots that arrive during the three-day extension period even if they lack a postmark or legible postmark.

Meanwhile in federal court, Republicans are suing to, among other things, outlaw drop boxes or other sites used to collect mail-in ballots.

The Supreme Court itself has already been asked to get involved in several cases, as it did in April, when conservative justices blocked Democratic efforts to extend absentee voting in Wisconsin during the primary.

There is, of course, precedent for an election that ends in the courts. In 2000, the Supreme Court settled a recount dispute in Florida, effectively handing the election to Republican George W. Bush.

Barry Richard, a Florida lawyer who represented Bush during that litigation, said there's no guarantee the Supreme Court will want to get involved again, or that any lawsuit over the election will present a compelling issue for the bench to address.

One significant difference between then and now, he said, is that neither candidate raised the prospect of not accepting the results.

“There was never any question, in 2000, about the essential integrity of the system. Neither candidate challenged it," Richard said. "Nobody even talked about whether or not the losing candidate would accept the results of the election. That was just assumed."