502 F.Supp.3d 899
M.D. Penn.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the Campaign) and two individual voters (Henry and Roberts) challenged Pennsylvania election practices after the 2020 general election, seeking to prevent statewide certification and to discard ballots cured or counted under county "notice-and-cure" procedures.
- Facts: Both individual plaintiffs had mail ballots canceled (Lancaster and Fayette counties) and allege they were not offered an opportunity to cure; some Pennsylvania counties used notice-and-cure procedures after guidance from Secretary Boockvar, others did not.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint narrowing claims to an Equal Protection claim and an Electors/Elections Clause claim (the latter preserved for appeal). Multiple counsel changes and expedited briefing/oral argument occurred; the Court heard motions to dismiss and denied further evidentiary hearing.
- Relief sought: Plaintiffs sought injunctions preventing Pennsylvania counties from certifying results and excluding ballots counted after cure procedures—effectively asking the Court to invalidate millions of votes.
- Disposition: The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state an Equal Protection claim; leave to amend was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of individual voters (vote-denial) | Individual voters say their ballots were cancelled and their right to vote was denied; injunctive relief (prevent certification) would redress injury | Defendants argue plaintiffs cannot trace cancellations to defendant counties or Secretary Boockvar and requested relief would not redress their injuries | Injury-in-fact shown, but causation and redressability fail; no standing to obtain the requested statewide relief |
| Standing of Trump Campaign (associational/competitive) | Campaign claims associational standing and "competitive" standing from disparate county practices that harmed its electoral prospects | Defendants say a campaign lacks associational standing here and competitive standing applies only to challenges to a rival's eligibility | Campaign failed to plead a cognizable theory of standing; Article III jurisdiction not established |
| Merits — Equal Protection (notice-and-cure discretion) | Plaintiffs invoke Bush v. Gore and claim a "standardless" system where some counties allow cures and others do not, producing arbitrary, unequal treatment | Defendants argue states/counties have discretion to administer elections; differences among counties are not per se unconstitutional and are reviewed under Anderson-Burdick/Burdick balancing | Court applies rational-basis/Anderson-Burdick context: allowing counties to adopt cure procedures is rational; plaintiffs fail to state an equal-protection violation |
| Remedy / Redressability (scope of relief sought) | Plaintiffs seek statewide decertification/invalidating ballots to remedy alleged denial of individual votes | Defendants stress that invalidating millions of valid votes is not a tailored remedy and would itself violate voters' rights | Court rejects remedy as improper: relief must be tailored to redress plaintiff's specific injury; leveling-down millions of voters is unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a "plausible" claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to pleading credit; plausibility standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (limited equal-protection rule concerning uniform statewide recounts and minimal procedural safeguards)
- Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (applying Anderson-Burdick balancing to election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (Anderson-Burdick framework for assessing burdens on the right to vote)
- Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (vote-denial and justiciability principles in voting-rights context)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (scope of judicial remedies must adhere to legal limits)
- Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347 (standing to challenge government authorization of third-party conduct is limited)
- Perles v. County Return Bd. of Northumberland County, 202 A.2d 538 (Pennsylvania precedent on the seriousness of disenfranchisement)