684 F.Supp.3d 720
N.D. Ill.2023Background
- Illinois statute (10 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/19-8(c)) allows mail ballots postmarked or certified by Election Day to be received and counted up to 14 days after Election Day.
- Plaintiffs are registered voters and former/prospective federal candidates who sued the Illinois State Board of Elections and its director, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the statute conflicts with federal election law and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Plaintiffs' core complaints: the statute allegedly dilutes timely ballots by permitting late receipt/counting and forces candidates to campaign after Election Day (additional time and expense).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to state a claim under federal election statutes and the Constitution.
- The court held Plaintiffs lacked concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries (standing), found the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the State Board, and concluded Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege conflicts with 2 U.S.C. § 7 / 3 U.S.C. § 1 or violations of the First or Fourteenth Amendments.
- Case dismissed without prejudice (jurisdictional grounds primary).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Statute causes vote dilution and candidate-specific campaign expenses, a concrete injury | Plaintiffs assert generalized grievances common to all voters; candidate expenditures speculative | Plaintiffs lack standing: injuries are generalized or too speculative/imminent requirement unmet |
| Eleventh Amendment | "Plan of the Convention" doctrine applies because federal Elections Clause governs, so sovereign immunity inapplicable | State Board is an arm of the state and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | Eleventh Amendment bars suit: no applicable plan-of-the-Convention exception shown |
| Conflict with federal election timing statutes (2 U.S.C. § 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1) | Counting ballots after Election Day conflicts with federal election day statutes and dilutes votes | Illinois law counts only ballots postmarked/certified by Election Day; states have room to set receipt deadlines consistent with federal statutes | No facial conflict: statute counts only ballots postmarked/certified by Election Day and coheres with federal practice and Congress/exec. accommodations (e.g., UOCAVA) |
| First/Fourteenth Amendment (vote-dilution; right to stand) | Counting late-received ballots dilutes votes; forces candidates to expend resources and burdens right to stand | Counting lawful ballots postmarked by Election Day does not deprive anyone of vote or candidacy; no arbitrary disparate treatment alleged | Plaintiffs fail to state plausible constitutional claims: no discriminatory treatment, no restriction on casting lawful ballots, and candidate burden is speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements; concreteness and particularization)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (concrete-injury requirement)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence requirement; "certainly impending")
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (generalized Elections Clause grievances do not confer standing)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (generalized grievance doctrine)
- Bognet v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pa., 980 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2020) (candidate and voter standing limits in Elections Clause claims)
- Feehan v. Wisconsin Election Commission, 506 F. Supp. 3d 596 (E.D. Wis. 2020) (rejecting vote-dilution standing based on alleged unlawful ballots)
- Moore v. Circosta, 949 F. Supp. 3d 289 (M.D.N.C. 2020) (vote-dilution claims from possible unlawful ballots are generalized/speculative)
- Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020) (electors had different posture challenging a decree altering absentee-deadline enforcement)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal-protection principles regarding vote weighting)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson-Burdick balancing test for burdens on voting)