HARRISBURG - A group hoping to show Pennsylvania does not properly handle federal elections has failed in federal court, as a magistrate judge has found its plaintiffs lack standing to file suit.
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Daryl Bloom, of the Middle District, on March 3 ruled against United Sovereign Americans in its lawsuit against Secretary of State Al Schmidt and others.
Citizens and a candidate are among the plaintiffs in the case, plus United Sovereign Americans - an elections watchdog located in Missouri. They alleged Pennsylvania mishandled 2022 federal elections in their complaint filed in June 2024, with concerns the same would happen this past November.
But it took until four months after the most recent election for the case to work itself to the point where Bloom considered motions to dismiss. One plaintiff he assessed was Marty Selker, the Constitution Party candidate for U.S. Senate last year.
"Petitioner Selker has alleged only that the general integrity of his election will be undermined, and that is not a 'particularized' injury," Bloom wrote, using three factors to determine if each plaintiff had standing.
The suit was filed with the hope of ensuring "only votes properly cast are counted" in 2024 and beyond. It complained that standards laid out by the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act were not met in 2022 but nothing was done to address that.
United Sovereign Americans alleged 9,000 more votes were counted than voters who voted, outside of an error rate laid out in the HAVA. It did not challenge the 2022 results and instead only sought to prevent any violations in the future.
United Sovereign Americans called the suit "historic" when it was filed. It hired Bruce Castor of van der Veen, Hartshorn, Levin & Lindheim to file it.
But the case was doomed by the standing issue, Bloom wrote. He cited U.S. Supreme Court direction that says the context of voting creates a special need for plaintiffs to allege injuries caused a "disadvantage to themselves as individuals."
"In contrast," Bloom wrote, "standing does not exist where a party brings only a 'generally available grievance about government' that alleges 'only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large.'"
Ruth Moton said she spend money on three campaigns but could not be certain of the location and identity of voters she was attempting to canvas. The money was spent in 2018, 2020 and 2022, and since the lawsuit only seeks future remedies, her claim was missing redressability.
Diane Houser said her vote was not recorded in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors system. Dean Dreibelbis said he ovserved and reported numerous election errors but was ignored.
"Without an allegation that either petitioner had a protected legal interest in receiving a response to their reports, or in having a vote appear in the SURE system, they fail to allege an injury," Bloom wrote.
"Further, even assuming arguendo that we were to find these to be cognizable injuries, it is apparent they will not be redressed by the exclusively forward-looking relief petitioners seek."