President Donald Trump is launching a series of lawsuits in the country's battleground states contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election. GBH Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and GBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed to make sense of the various lawsuits. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.

Joe Mathieu: So before we dive into these assorted lawsuits that the president and his surrogates have filed, he promised that an avalanche of new ones would be filed yesterday. Rudy Giuliani told us this was coming. Did the avalanche fall on you?

Daniel Medwed: Well, like so many things related to our president, it was really much ado about nothing. Marc Elias, a voting rights lawyer for Biden [and] a major lawyer in the country, tweeted yesterday that there were "a few stragglers, but nothing significant." And I think the relative litigation silence here speaks volumes. Yes, there are a lot of cases pending, but many are on the verge of being dismissed and the others are very unlikely to shift the vote tallies in any meaningful way.

Mathieu: This has been described as a kitchen sink kind of approach — we're just throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks. How would you characterize the president's overall legal strategy, if there is one?

Medwed: I don't think there's a strategy, and I think the kitchen sink description is very apt. It's like the love child between Jackson Pollock and Judge Judy, right? It's a complete abstract and bizarre legal strategy.

Mathieu: I'm trying to picture this.

Medwed: I guess if I had to categorize these lawsuits and impose structure on the disorder, I guess I could try. So one category relates to lawsuits about access to observe the vote counting process — that Trump's team should be able to watch what's going on. A second bucket of cases targets mail-in ballots in particular, focusing on the timing of their receipt and the manner in which they're processed. And a final grouping, I think, and it's a very broad one, relates to claims of lax safeguards in states that purportedly allow voter fraud to flourish. Unsurprisingly, a lot of these litigation efforts focus on Pennsylvania.

Mathieu: Pennsylvania. Battleground Pennsylvania. 20 electoral votes. I guess it's no surprise that this is where this battle is being waged.

Medwed: I think that's right, and there are lots of different cases there. I think there are seven active ones, maybe even more. Just late last night, the Trump team filed an additional one with a lot of fanfare from their campaign, at least about how Pennsylvania allegedly has a two-tiered approach to counting votes [and] treats mail-in votes differently from in-person votes, supposedly. In addition, there have been multiple lawsuits about gaining Republican access to observe the vote tabulation process in Philadelphia. Even though Pennsylvania has complied with those requests, including a state court order, the Trump team was unfazed [and] filed another lawsuit in federal court, which they lost. Also, there was a major suit that got a lot of attention and culminated in an order from Justice Samuel Alito demanding that the secretary of state of Pennsylvania separate the mail in ballots into two categories: those that were received by Election Day and those that were postmarked and received up until Friday of last week. The state Supreme Court had said that that latter process was OK — that voters could submit their mail-in ballots, mail them by Election Day as long as they were received by Friday. The Trump team touted this as a big victory [and] that Justice Alito had held Pennsylvania to account, but it was really a Pyrrhic one, and here's why. The secretary of state of Pennsylvania was already doing this. She had already ordered poll workers to separate these ballots in the event of election litigation. And what's more, very few votes were at stake. Very few ballots fell into that latter category.

Mathieu: OK, so with all of this said, then, everything you've told us this morning, Daniel, could this lawsuit — Pennsylvania [or] any of them — go to the Supreme Court, as the president has said?

Medwed: I don't think so, and here's why. The gap is just too wide and the number of states in play too diffuse for that to happen. So for Trump to prevail and get to the Supreme Court in any meaningful way and gain enough electoral votes before the states certify them in December and they go to Congress in January, he'd have to raise concerns about the voting process in multiple states and with thousands and thousands of votes at stake — far more than what occurred in 2000. What made 2000 so outcome determinative [in] the Supreme Court decision in Bush versus Gore is this dispute boiled down to one state, Florida, and only about 530 votes separated the two candidates here. You've got 147,000 in Michigan, 45,000 in Pennsylvania, 36,000 in Nevada and I could go on to talk about Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia. Just too many states in play [and] too many cases. I don't see how the Supreme Court affects the outcome.