Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Millis, 1:23-cv-01416

Plaintiffs (Wisconsin Voter Alliance, Ron Heuer, Kenneth Brown) sued members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming WEC failed to properly adjudicate complaints under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Plaintiffs filed HAVA complaints in 2022 and 2023 regarding WEC’s participation in the Electronic Registration Information Center and alleged improper absentee voting guidance.
WEC refused to adjudicate the complaints, citing ethical recusal since the complaints were filed against itself, and returned the complaints without a decision.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, arguing their right to have their complaints adjudicated under HAVA was violated.
The court previously dismissed the case for lack of standing but allowed plaintiffs to amend the complaint due to public interest in election integrity.
On summary judgment, the central question was whether the plaintiffs established Article III standing to bring their claims in federal court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing – Injury in Fact	Plaintiffs suffered harm by WEC not deciding HAVA complaints; intended future filings unaddressed.	No concrete, particularized injury; HAVA/§1983 give no federal cause of action here.	Plaintiffs’ injury insufficient—only a generalized grievance; no standing.
Organizational Standing (WVA)	WVA harmed by WEC’s inaction and forced diversion of resources.	Expenditure of resources to oppose policies does not confer standing.	No standing; organizations cannot manufacture injury merely by spending resources.
Right to Federal Court Adjudication	Plaintiffs entitled to federal adjudication of rights denied at the state level.	HAVA provides only administrative remedies or attorney general actions.	Plaintiffs lack cause of action under HAVA and §1983 for direct federal enforcement.
Remedy for Unadjudicated HAVA Complaints	Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of state process.	Relief should be pursued through HAVA-prescribed federal audits, not courts.	Court refuses to create remedies not provided by statute.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court: requires concrete, particularized injury for standing)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court: statutory violation alone insufficient for standing absent concrete harm)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court: standing must be established before merits)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court: judicial power limited to actual cases or controversies)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court: court must ensure standing even if not raised by parties)
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (Supreme Court: organizational interest or opposition not sufficient for standing)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (Supreme Court: long-standing interest alone doesn't confer standing)