We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Left-wing forces in Washington, D.C., are attempting to revive a 2020 lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, his campaign, and the Republican National Committee to tip the scales of the election in favor of Democrats.

If the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have their way, Trump and the RNC would be barred from “engaging in any activities related to recounts, certifications, or similar post-election activities” without receiving prior approval from the D.C. District Court to do so.

Moreover, the case is before lawfare Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s criminal trial in the nation’s capital, despite calls for recusal over prejudicial statements she made against Trump in a separate case.

“This case is just another example of the left weaponizing courts to take out their competition. The left simply doesn’t want Republicans to be part of the process or be able to engage in routine election activities like observe polling places,” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, told The Federalist in a statement.

“Liberals want elections to be run behind closed doors where nobody can observe the process or question liberal election policies. It’s shameful that left-wing lawyers act as if the courts should work only for Democrats.”

The case threatens to effectively put back in place restrictions that hindered the RNC for nearly four decades. A judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter instated the restrictions when he settled a case between the RNC and the Democrats with a consent decree that limited Republicans’ abilities to partake in regular election practices like poll watching.

From 1981 to 2018, the judge, who only served for 15 years but took senior status for 21, continued to renew the consent decree, and modify it in favor of Democrats, as The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway pointed out in her book Rigged:

For decades, the Democratic Party built up expansive coordination efforts that the Republicans were prohibited from developing. Republican candidates and state parties could do things on their own, but not with help from the national party. …

The consent decree also meant the RNC was kept out of almost any litigation related to Election Day. In fact, a main part of the RNC’s legal efforts came to be training RNC staff to stay away from Election Day operations on Election Day, including recounts, and fending off litigation that arose from the consent decree. It utterly paralyzed the political operation of the RNC, as the slightest misstep would result in getting sued by Democrats.

The current case has been sitting relatively quietly in the federal district court, and the MWRO and NAACP filed an amended complaint after certain portions were dismissed by a different judge initially assigned to the case.

“This lawsuit has been going on for four years and is a frivolous and transparent attempt at election interference,” an RNC spokesman told The Federalist. “That’s why the court dismissed the initial complaint. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fares no better and won’t stop the RNC from protecting the integrity of our elections.”

With the election coming up, the case has recently seen movement after being “randomly reassigned” to Chutkan in 2023. According to court documents, the case had two different judges before landing before Chutkan.

Although no major decisions have been made on the case yet, at a November hearing, Chutkan highlighted how important it was to keep the case moving in time for the 2024 election.

“It’s been pending for a long time. At a certain point, a failure to decide means that it effectively denies the plaintiffs their remedy,” Chutkan told Trump’s lawyers. “Their remedy is they’re seeking injunctive relief to prevent what they allege are the problems that arose in the 2020 election; and the 2024 election is staring us in the face.”

Chutkan currently oversees the lawfare brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is similarly stir-crazy to take legal swipes at Trump before the election.

Part of Trump’s legal defense has been citing presidential immunity, both before and after the U.S. Supreme Court decision finding immunity for certain actions taken as president.

In mid-August of this year, plaintiff lawyers sought to avoid the immunity question altogether by asking permission to amend their complaint and drop the initial request for damages, to focus solely on blocking Republicans from partaking in election-related activities. In their motion to amend the complaint, the lawyers also noted that they were seeking a decision blocking Republicans just before the election, saying, “This amendment seeks to move this long-delayed case forward, and, as acknowledged by this Court, the window for Plaintiffs to receive injunctive relief continues to shrink as the 2024 Presidential election approaches.”

Trump’s legal team filed a motion in opposition to the request to amend the plaintiff complaint for the third time on Sept. 3.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would restrict the Republican Party from being involved in elections more than the 1981 consent decree because the new lawsuit, in addition to asking that poll watcher restrictions be reinstated, seeks to limit GOP interactions with election officials.

Speaking with CNN, Rajiv Parikh, a Democrat attorney involved in keeping the 1981 consent decree alive, said Democrats believe a court intervention here will be particularly helpful for them in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where lawsuits and challenges are almost certain to arise.

For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.

Breccan F. Thies is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. He previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.