Gordon v. Miller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140630

Plaintiffs filed January 3, 2011 seeking to enjoin Clerk Haas from recognizing elected members from five states during the 112th Congress because winner-take-all electors allegedly violate constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs rely on U.S. Constitution XIV §2 and 2 U.S.C. §6 to argue a reduction in representation and a move to proportional electors—i.e., a popular vote split.
Clerk denied a temporary restraining order (January 4, 2011), and the 112th Congress convened January 5, 2011.
The court previously addressed Gordon’s standing in a similar 2009-2010 action against Vice President Biden; this action adds Tharpe, Moss, and Scott and a new defendant.
Court grants motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing, concluding no plaintiff has shown injury, causation, and redressability; Clerk lacks authority to reallocate House representation.
The Clerk’s duties include noting roll, calling members, and presiding over Speaker election; she has no power to reallocate apportionment among states.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do plaintiffs have standing to sue the Clerk?	Tharpe, Moss, Scott have injury-in-fact as voters; Gordon argues DC weight of vote; injuries are traceable to Clerk.	No injury, no causation, no redressability; Clerk’s acts are ministerial and not the source of the harm.	No standing; Court lacks jurisdiction.
Is causation shown for Tharpe, Moss, and Scott?	Injury stems from disenfranchisement by five states’ winner-take-all system.	Causation not shown; harm lies with non-parties (the states), not the Clerk.	Causation not established.
Has Gordon pled a cognizable injury-in-fact?	Gordon suffers vote dilution as a DC voter and elector.	Gordon does not vote in the five states; no injury tied to Clerk’s actions.	No injury-in-fact; Gordon lacks standing.
Can any redressability be obtained by the Clerk's dismissal or relief sought?	Clerk could deny recognition of five states’ representatives and reduce their apportionment.	Relief would require changes beyond Clerk’s power and reflect non-justiciable policy choices.	Redressability lacking; no judicially manageable relief.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (causation and injury principles in standing)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing must be analyzed before merits)
Gordon v. Biden, 606 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (prior lack of standing for similar vote-dilution claim)
Reaves v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 355 F. Supp. 2d 510 (D.D.C. 2005) (injury cannot be imputed to federal defendants when harm is caused by state action)