HARRISBURG – A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice the bid of a group of Republican lawmakers and candidates who sued Philadelphia County, Delaware County and Centre County, alleging both GOP candidates and voters are being hurt by the use of nonprofit grant funds from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL).
The Pennsylvania Voters Alliance, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, Rep. Eric Nelson, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Rep. Dawn Wetzel Keefer, Rep. Russ Diamond, Rep. Chris Dush, Rep. Jim Gregory, Rep. Francis Ryan, voters Kristine Eng, Theodore A. Dannerth, Eric Kroner and Congressional candidates Michael Harvey, David Torres and Dasha Pruett initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25 versus Philadelphia County of Philadelphia, Delaware County of Media and Centre County of Bellefonte.
The litigation centers around $13 million in grant funds from CTCL that were presented to Philadelphia County, Delaware County and Centre Country, which the plaintiffs allege is an illegal public-private partnership, one whose influence will skew to progressive voters instead of conservative voters.
“CTCL, to accomplish its objective of turning out progressive votes in the urban counties and cities, has circumvented these state legislatures by recruiting local governments to apply and agree to accept CTCL’s private federal election grants,” the suit said.
CTCL has attracted prominent donors, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, who committed $250 million to the organization to promote “safe and reliable voting in states and localities” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to a statement from CTCL, it is a non-partisan organization that has assisted municipalities with no distinction to political party.
“This year, we’ve heard from countless election officials, from across the political spectrum, who simply don’t have the funding they need to provide a safe, secure voting process for their voters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the organization said.
“In this moment of need, we feel so fortunate to be administering an open call grant program available to every local election department in every state in the union to ensure that they have the staffing, training, and equipment necessary so that this November every eligible voter can participate in a safe and timely way and have their vote counted.”
CTCL described itself as “a non-partisan organization backed by Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisan officials”, one which is “confident that these frivolous charges are without merit, and looks forward to continuing this critical grant program in these unprecedented times.”
Philadelphia County netted $10 million from the CTCL grant funds, which was utilized for 15 mail-in voting locations, seven of which were launched on Oct. 6, poll workers, materials and processing equipment for absentee and mail-in voting, secure drop boxes, printing, postage and other supplies.
For the remaining grant funds, CTCL issued $2.2 million to Delaware County and $863,000 to Centre County for similar purposes, per the litigation.
However, critics contend that CTCL is actually a group of Democratic operatives seeking to maximize the use of mail-in ballots and tip the voting scales toward Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
Scott Walter, president of the Washington-based Capital Research Center (CRC), says the group’s focus is on those urban areas where President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 by narrow margins.
UPDATE: Judge Finds Plaintiffs Didn't Demonstrate Article III Standing
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann found that the plaintiffs had not satisfactorily proven their case and lacked threshold standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, for the elements of particularity, causation and redressability.
“Plaintiffs assert three theories of standing. First, they argue that the CTCL grants disadvantage the plaintiffs because they provide an advantage to progressive and Democrat candidates in the counties where plaintiffs live and vote,” Brann said.
“Second, they argue that, without injunctive relief, the CTCL grants will delegitimize and thus invalidate the elections, consequently resulting in plaintiffs lacking political representation until the election can be re-done. Third, plaintiffs offer the novel theory that they have suffered an injury as a third-party beneficiary to the ‘social contract’ between the federal government and the individual states.”
Brann was not persuaded by any of the three arguments, saying they relied on a “highly attenuated causal chain of events”, and that there was no guarantee that increased voter participating would only be in support of progressive candidates, let alone be enough to decide the outcome of the election.
“Plaintiffs’ appear to allege only that their right to vote has been infringed because it now might be more difficult for them to elect their preferred candidate,” Brann said, adding that the plaintiffs’ case was more accurately termed as a “generalized grievance.”
“Though plaintiffs have done a valiant job of disguising it, the only interest they have identified is of a general nature – that plaintiffs’ ability to influence state and federal elections will be diluted if (Centre County and others) take steps that might result in increased voter turnout,” Brann stated.
“The implication that increased voter turnout is inherently beneficial to progressive candidates is dubious at best,” Brann wrote. “And the court finds this assumption far too dependent on the actions of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters to premise standing.”
Brann then dismissed the plaintiffs’ case.
“None of these theories are persuasive. Plaintiffs have not shown that they can satisfy any of the three elements of standing. That is, plaintiffs have not shown that they will suffer an injury in fact, that any injury is fairly traceable to defendants, or that any purported injury is likely to be redressable. Consequently, their complaint is dismissed,” Brann said.
The plaintiffs were seeking declaratory relief that Philadelphia County, Delaware County and Centre County have acted without legal authority in accepting CTCL’s private federal election grants, an injunction enjoining Philadelphia County, Delaware County and Centre County from using CTCL’s private federal election grants, costs, expenses and expert witness fees, attorney’s fees and costs, plus such other and further relief as the Court deems just.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:20-cv-01761
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com