FORMAN v. SCHMIDT
2:24-cv-00266
W.D. Pa.Apr 25, 2025Background
- Pro se plaintiff Brenda Forman challenged the certification and use of voting machines in Pennsylvania, claiming they are not properly certified and present security risks.
- Forman alleged Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt failed to decertify voting machines after being notified of alleged issues.
- Forman claimed this inaction violated federal and state laws, including the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and various constitutional provisions.
- After multiple amended complaints and motions to dismiss, the Court addressed Secretary Schmidt's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
- The primary basis for dismissal was lack of Article III standing due to the generalized and speculative nature of Forman’s alleged injury.
- The Court also found Forman failed to state any viable legal claim, dismissing the case without further leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing | Use of uncertified, insecure machines could disenfranchise her; inability to verify vote | Injury is generalized/speculative; no particularized harm alleged | No standing; claims are generalized/speculative |
| HAVA Private Right of Action | Secretary's conduct violated HAVA | HAVA does not provide a private right of action | No private right of action under HAVA |
| NVRA Violation | Secretary violated NVRA | NVRA concerns voter registration & not at issue here | No NVRA violation alleged |
| Constitutional Claims (Due Process, etc) | Failure to decertify machines violated constitutional rights | Allegations are conclusory, lack factual basis | No facts pled to support constitutional claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts must determine jurisdiction before merits)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (defines elements of standing)
- Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (standing is prerequisite to Article III jurisdiction)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
- Am. Civil Rights Union v. Phila. City Comm’rs, 872 F.3d 175 (HAVA contains no private right of action)