Restoring Trust in U.S. Elections: The Critical Role of Open Court Hearings in Addressing Disputes

The 2020 U.S. presidential election is one of the most contentious in modern history, not only for its razor-thin margins in key battleground states but also for the ongoing debate over the legitimacy of the results. While courts across the country consistently ruled that there was no evidence of widespread fraud, many Americans, particularly those who supported Donald Trump, continue to question the integrity of the election. A key factor contributing to this ongoing skepticism is that none of the major fraud cases filed in the aftermath of the election ever reached a full-scale trial with a detailed public examination of evidence.

The legal challenges, many brought by Republican lawyers and Trump’s legal team, were swiftly dismissed on procedural grounds or lack of sufficient evidence. But for many voters, this dismissal was not enough. They wanted to see the claims aired fully in court, with evidence laid bare for public scrutiny. The lack of full trials, combined with informal public hearings that lacked the rigor of court proceedings, left a vacuum that has been filled by misinformation, speculation, and continued distrust in the electoral process.

This situation raises a critical question: Could the transparency and rigor of open court hearings have played a decisive role in restoring public confidence in the results? As America looks to future elections, the potential value of open court hearings — where election disputes are litigated in full public view — could be essential in bridging the gap between legal rulings and public trust.

The 2020 Election Legal Battles: What Happened?

After the 2020 election, more than 60 lawsuits were filed by the Trump campaign and its supporters, alleging various forms of fraud and irregularities, from claims of improper ballot counting to accusations of voter manipulation. Key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona became focal points of legal challenges. However, most cases were quickly dismissed by judges, often without advancing to a full trial.

In many cases, judges ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to present credible evidence that could justify overturning the results. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign’s case challenging mail-in ballots, Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, was dismissed after the court found that the arguments were based on “strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations.” Similar rulings were issued in other states, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear several appeals, including a high-profile case filed by Texas against Pennsylvania and other battleground states.

These legal dismissals, while procedurally sound, were not widely seen as conclusive by those who questioned the results. Many believed that their concerns had been brushed aside without being properly heard, fueling the belief that something was being hidden or that the courts were avoiding the issue. This perception of evasion, rather than direct engagement, has left lingering doubts among millions of voters.

The Role of Open Court Hearings in Bridging the Divide

Open court hearings, where evidence is presented and scrutinized in a transparent, public manner, could have made a significant difference in how the aftermath of the 2020 election was perceived. Here’s how:

1. Transparency and Public Scrutiny:

• One of the most powerful tools in democracy is transparency. When cases are heard in open court, the public can see for themselves how the legal process works, how evidence is presented, and how judges make their decisions. In the 2020 election, much of the legal process happened behind closed doors or in brief courtroom hearings that didn’t delve into the merits of the evidence.
• Open hearings could have allowed the public to see and hear directly from experts, witnesses, and election officials about the security of the election process, the validity of the claims, and the standards by which courts evaluate evidence. Even if the ultimate outcome remained the same — dismissal of claims for lack of evidence — the transparency of the process would have provided a degree of closure and credibility.

2. Addressing Misinformation:

• In the absence of open hearings, the void has been filled by misinformation and conspiracy theories, amplified by social media and political rhetoric. A full, public examination of the claims, where evidence is subject to cross-examination, could have countered some of this misinformation by providing a clear and verifiable record of the facts.
• When people feel that their concerns have been dismissed without proper scrutiny, they are more likely to seek alternative explanations. Open court hearings would allow for a more direct and fact-based confrontation of the claims, offering a platform for debunking misinformation with verifiable legal conclusions.

3. Building Public Trust in the Legal Process:

• The legal system is the cornerstone of resolving disputes in a democracy. However, for that system to be effective, the public must believe that it operates fairly and transparently. In the case of the 2020 election, the rapid dismissal of many cases on procedural grounds left many voters feeling that the courts had not fully considered their concerns.
• Open court hearings, where both sides present their evidence, would have demonstrated that the courts are willing to engage deeply with claims of election fraud, even if the claims ultimately prove to be unfounded. The perception that the legal system gave both sides a fair hearing is critical to maintaining trust in democratic institutions.

4. Setting a Precedent for Future Elections:

• The controversies surrounding the 2020 election are not unique, and similar challenges are likely to arise in future elections. Establishing a precedent for open hearings in election-related cases could help prevent future doubts from festering.
• By ensuring that major election disputes are litigated in full public view, the courts can set an example for how election challenges should be handled — transparently, rigorously, and based on evidence.

Learning from History: Bush v. Gore and the Power of Public Legal Battles

A useful comparison can be made with the 2000 presidential election, when the Supreme Court weighed in on the dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount. While the outcome of Bush v. Gore was polarizing, the case was watched closely by the public, and the legal process was covered extensively by the media. The transparency of the process allowed voters to see how the legal system worked through the issue, even if they didn’t agree with the final decision.

In contrast, many of the election challenges in 2020 were resolved quickly and quietly, without the same level of public engagement. Had at least one significant case proceeded to a full trial — where evidence was publicly examined and debated — it might have offered a similar sense of closure to both sides of the political divide.

A Path Forward: Legislative and Judicial Reforms for Transparency

To ensure that future elections avoid the same level of mistrust, several reforms could be enacted to increase transparency and accountability in the legal process:

1. Mandatory Public Hearings for Election Disputes: State and federal laws could be enacted to require open court hearings for significant election challenges, particularly those alleging fraud or irregularities. These hearings should be fully accessible to the public, either in person or via media coverage, ensuring that all claims are addressed transparently.
2. Live Broadcasts and Public Access: In the digital age, making court proceedings accessible via live broadcasts or online streaming is more feasible than ever. High-profile cases, especially those involving election disputes, should be made available for public viewing to ensure that the legal process is visible and accountable.
3. Clear Judicial Summaries: When courts dismiss election cases, they should provide clear, detailed explanations of their decisions in simple, understandable language. This would help the public understand why certain cases did not proceed and what legal standards were applied.
4. Bipartisan Oversight of Election Audits: In addition to court hearings, bipartisan audits of election results should become standard in contested races. These audits, conducted transparently and with public reporting, would provide another layer of assurance that elections are conducted fairly and accurately.

Conclusion: The Importance of Public Trust in Elections

Elections are the foundation of democracy, but for democracy to function, the public must have confidence in the electoral process. Open court hearings in election disputes would provide a vital tool for building and maintaining that trust, ensuring that claims of fraud or irregularities are fully examined and resolved in a transparent and accountable manner.

As the U.S. looks ahead to future elections, the lessons of 2020 should not be ignored. By implementing reforms that prioritize transparency and public access to the legal process, the country can take meaningful steps toward restoring confidence in its most fundamental democratic institution — the right to vote. In a time of deep political polarization, ensuring that every voter feels their concerns are heard and addressed is essential for the long-term health of American democracy.