623 F.Supp.3d 1015
D. Ariz.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Kari Lake and Mark Finchem sued Arizona election officials challenging the use of electronic ballot-marking and tabulation systems, alleging cybersecurity vulnerabilities and seeking an order requiring hand-marked paper-ballot procedures for the 2022 midterms.
- Plaintiffs relied on reports and expert assertions (including the Cyber Ninjas report) claiming systemic vulnerabilities, insufficient transparency, and past anomalies; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ex parte Young.
- Arizona’s process: nearly all voters use hand-marked paper ballots; accessible voting devices produce voter-verifiable paper records; equipment undergoes EAC and state certification; counties perform pre- and post-election logic-and-accuracy tests and a required hand-count audit of a sampling of ballots.
- Defendants (Maricopa and Pima County officials and the Arizona Secretary of State) moved to dismiss for lack of standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, untimeliness, and failure to state claims; the Secretary also raised Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional arguments.
- At a July 21, 2022 hearing, the court concluded Plaintiffs’ allegations were speculative, barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that Plaintiffs sought relief untimely under Purcell; the court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied the preliminary-injunction motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Plaintiffs contend systemic vulnerabilities create a substantial risk their votes (and election outcomes) could be altered, and as candidates they suffer particularized injury. | Defendants say harms are speculative, not imminent or particularized; allegations cite other jurisdictions and conjecture. | Dismissed for lack of standing: alleged injuries too speculative and not certainly impending. |
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young | Plaintiffs seek prospective relief for alleged federal constitutional violations and statutory violations by state actors. | Defendants argue Ex parte Young does not apply because relief would require enforcing or rewriting state election law and Plaintiffs’ claims rest on state-law compliance or policy choices. | Dismissed: Eleventh Amendment bars claims because they would require intrusive supervision of state election administration and rely on state-law-based complaints. |
| Purcell / timeliness of injunctive relief | Plaintiffs argue relief is needed to protect vote integrity and was filed with sufficient lead time. | Defendants assert Purcell bars last-minute changes that would burden election administration and the requested overhaul is impracticable before the election. | Relief would be untimely and disruptive under Purcell; preliminary injunction denied as moot after dismissal. |
| Request to supplement record / judicial notice | Plaintiffs sought leave to add evidence to impeach county testimony and opposed some judicial-notice requests. | Defendants sought judicial notice of official documents and opposed late supplementation as gamesmanship. | Court granted limited judicial notice of government records, denied untimely supplemental evidence, and refused to permit post-hearing supplementation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (concrete and particularized injury requirement)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (threatened injury must be certainly impending)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (narrow exception to state sovereign immunity for prospective relief against state officers)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (federal courts should ordinarily not change election rules on the eve of an election)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (standing requires personal and individual injury)
- Weber v. Shelley, 347 F.3d 1101 (no constitutional right to any particular voting method)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limits on federal-court relief that would entangle courts in state administration)