947 F.3d 977
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections (SAVE) and four Shelby County residents challenging local and state election officials and commissions.
- Allegations: recurring election-administration errors (wrong ballots/addresses, unredacted poll books, post-upload vote adjustments) and vulnerabilities in Internet-capable digital voting machines (no individual paper records, risk of hacking, possible "vote flipping").
- Plaintiffs assert these problems dilute or deny votes and force extra campaign and monitoring costs; some plaintiffs plan future candidacies.
- Relief sought: injunctive and declaratory relief including decertification or replacement of machines, mandatory paper ballots/optical scanners, testing and audits, cybersecurity measures, and supervisory oversight.
- Procedural posture: District court dismissed for lack of Article III standing; plaintiffs appealed.
- Central legal question: whether plaintiffs alleged a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury fairly traceable to defendants and redressable by the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual plaintiffs' Article III standing (imminent injury) | Past errors and machine vulnerabilities create a substantial, imminent risk of future vote denial/dilution | Alleged harms are speculative, mostly human error, not certainly impending; plaintiffs do not allege systemic or authorized misconduct | No standing; injuries are not sufficiently imminent or particularized; dismissal affirmed |
| Associational standing (SAVE representing members) | SAVE represents members who face the same voting risks, so members would have standing | Members lack individual standing, so association cannot assert their claims | No associational standing because members lack Article III standing |
| Organizational standing (SAVE in its own right via diversion of resources) | SAVE diverted resources to address alleged vulnerabilities and litigation, producing organizational injury | Alleged costs are retrospective or part of SAVE’s core mission and do not show imminent future injury; speculative fears cannot be cured by spending | No organizational standing: alleged expenditures are not the kind of imminent injury that supports injunctive relief and do not create standing |
| Pleading-standard interplay (12(b)(1) v. Twombly/Iqbal) | Plaintiffs argue general allegations suffice to show imminent risk at pleading stage | Defendants argue courts may require plausibly pleaded facts showing imminence | Court declines to resolve the standards split because plaintiffs fail under either standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (no standing based on speculative, attenuated future harms; imminence requirement)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires showing that challenged conduct is likely to recur or is officially authorized)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (past occurrences of alleged wrongs do not alone establish standing to enjoin future conduct)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (associational standing requires members capable of suing in their own right)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing may arise from diversion of resources when organization’s mission is frustrated)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (preconditions for associational standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing pleading principles; past injury and speculation insufficient for imminent harm)
- Grendell v. Ohio Supreme Court, 252 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2001) (declaratory/injunctive relief requires present ongoing or imminent harm)
- Sandusky Cty. Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishable; standing where challenged policy made vote denial inevitable)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to pleadings)
- Curling v. Raffensperger, 403 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (district court ordered replacement of hacked voting machines; court here distinguishes geographic and factual scope)