248 F. Supp. 3d 1014
D. Or.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Roy B. Conant sued Oregon officials in their official capacities challenging several Oregon election statutes governing presidential primaries, elector nomination, winner-take-all allocation, and omission of elector names from the general-election ballot.
- Plaintiff primarily invoked Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment and also asserted First Amendment and Guarantee Clause theories; he sought declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged harms from the 2016 primary, general election, and electors’ meeting.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing and mootness) and for failure to state a claim; the court considered both grounds.
- The court found the amended complaint lacked factual allegations establishing Article III standing (no allegation plaintiff is a registered voter or unaffiliated voter, and harms alleged were conclusory) and that challenges tied to the completed 2016 election were moot as to injunctive relief.
- On the merits the court rejected each constitutional theory challenging: (1) Oregon’s semi-closed primary statute, (2) the statute requiring elector pledges and party nomination processes, (3) winner-take-all allocation of electors, and (4) omission of electors’ names from the ballot—concluding controlling precedent and constitutional text foreclosed plaintiff’s claims.
- Because any amendment would be futile (no cognizable legal claim), the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standing / jurisdiction | Conant alleged injury from 2016 primary, general election, and electors’ meeting; sought relief under §2 of the 14th Amendment | Defendants: complaint lacks factual allegations showing Conant is a registered or unaffiliated voter or otherwise injured; some claims moot | Dismissed for lack of Article III standing; 2016-election claims moot for injunctive relief though declaratory claims may be live in general, but here standing insufficient |
| 2. Primary law (O.R.S. 254.365) | Oregon’s semi-closed/closed primary coerces independent voters to join parties and dilutes vote (one-person, one-vote; First/14th Amendments) | State: Oregon’s system is semi-closed; parties may admit nonaffiliated voters; precedent allows closed/semi-closed primaries | Claim fails; controlling precedent permits party-controlled primaries and minimal burden of registration does not violate First or Fourteenth Amendment |
| 3. Elector pledge / nomination (O.R.S. 248.355) | Requiring electors to pledge and party nomination processes coerce association and exclude unaffiliated voters from being electors | State: statute governs how parties select electors; nonaffiliated candidates/assemblies can nominate electors under Oregon law | Claim fails; law does not force affiliation to vote or to be an elector; statutory nomination routes exist for nonaffiliated candidates |
| 4. Winner-take-all & elector names on ballot (O.R.S. 248.360(2)) | Winner-take-all dilutes minority votes; omission of elector names violates §2 (right to vote for choice of electors) and Guarantee Clause | State: Article II grants states plenary authority to appoint electors; Supreme Court and circuit precedent uphold winner-take-all and omission practice | Claims fail; Williams and related precedent validate winner-take-all and Ray v. Blair and constitutional structure permit ballots listing presidential candidates rather than elector names |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
- Ziskis v. Symington, 47 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 1995) (closed primary upheld against association and equal protection challenge)
- Nader v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 989 (summary affirmance of district court upholding closed primary restrictions)
- Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 320 (winner-take-all method did not violate Fourteenth Amendment)
- Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (party pledge/omission of elector names on ballot recognized as longstanding practice)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (state legislature’s plenary power to direct manner of appointing electors)