Wendy Townley v. Ross Miller, 722 F.3d 1128

Nevada permits voters to cast a ballot for 'None of these candidates' (NOTC) in statewide/presidential races; NOTC votes are counted separately but do not determine the winner.
In 2012, plaintiffs challenged § 293.269(2) as disenfranchising voters who cast NOTC ballots, seeking to stop NOTC on the ballot or give NOTC votes legal effect.
Nevada’s NOTC statute has three subsections: NOTC must appear on ballots (subsection 1); only named-candidate votes determine winners (subsection 2); NOTC votes must be reported after named-candidate votes (subsection 2).
The operative complaint challenges only subsection 2, arguing it deprives NOTC voters of a legal effect for their ballots, while not challenging subsection 1’s ballot inclusion.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring NOTC, which the district court’s order was stayed on appeal; NOTC appeared on the 2012 ballot pending this appeal.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addresses standing, not the merits of the NOTC policy or its constitutionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do NOTC voters have standing to challenge §293.269(2)?	Riedl and Dougan have concrete, imminent injury from NOTC ballots being disregarded.	Relief would not redress injury because plaintiffs seek removal of NOTC rather than giving it legal effect.	NOTC voters have injury and causation but lack redressability; no standing.
Do non-NOTC voters have standing to challenge §293.269(2)?	Non-NOTC voters suffer potential future injury if NOTC ballots affect elections.	Injury is too speculative and not firmly traceable to the statute’s challenged provision.	Non-NOTC voters lack standing.
Do competitive standing plaintiffs (party/nominees) have standing to challenge §293.269(2)?	NOTC as a ballot option harms the party’s nominees by siphoning votes.	Competitive injury must be causally connected and redressable, which is not shown here.	Competitive standing fails; injury not fairly traceable or redressable.
Does the district court have proper standing to grant relief given the asserted plaintiffs' standing?	Plaintiffs have standing to obtain injunction against NOTC.	Standing is lacking as described for each group.	Court articulates overall lack of standing; vacates injunction and dismisses without prejudice.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (redressability and standing defects)
Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969) (capable of repetition yet evading review doctrine)
Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979) (standing analysis and redressability in alimony context)
Gonzales v. Gorsuch, 688 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1982) (injury may be manifest when relief worsens position)
Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011) (competitive standing requires traceability and redressability)
Townley v. Miller, 693 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012) (standing and injunctive relief in election context; redressability)
Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006) (competitive injury and standing analysis)
Nelson v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1990) (capable repetition doctrine; standing)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (personal stake in litigation; standing principle)