Judge dismisses federal lawsuit seeking to halt Maryland’s elections

A federal judge in Baltimore dismissed a lawsuit seeking to halt the 2024 election in Maryland.

The lawsuit filed earlier this year by two organizations alleged that the Maryland State Board of Elections violated state and federal election law as well as the Maryland Public Information Act.

U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, in dismissing the case, said the “plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and this court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”

Two groups — Maryland Election Integrity LLC and Missouri-based United Sovereign Americans — filed suit in March against the state board and an amended complaint in April. The suit alleged the state board maintained inaccurate voter registration lists and violated federal election law. Earlier this month, the groups asked Gallagher to issue an injunction preventing the board from certifying election results until the errors are fixed.

United Sovereign Americans and Maryland Election Integrity were the plaintiffs in the amended complaint. As such, the two would have either had to establish their own right to ask the court to intervene or act as representatives of members who were harmed, according to the opinion.

C. Edward Hartman III, an Annapolis-based attorney, representing the two groups, was not immediately available for comment. Hartman represented Dan Cox, then the Republican nominee for governor, in a failed 2022 bid to block the early counting of mail-in ballots that year.

Late last month, the Maryland State Board of Elections asked the judge to deny the request for a restraining order and dismiss the lawsuit.

On Wednesday, Gallagher granted the state’s motion.

“Despite plaintiffs’ numerous assertions of problems with Maryland’s voting system, this Court can begin and end its analysis with Plaintiffs’ standing,” Gallgher wrote in her nine-page opinion.

Both corporate entities “lack standing to seek relief for injuries to themselves,” Gallagher wrote.

“Here, Maryland Election Integrity was ‘created for the purpose of resolving violations of Maryland law and restoring trust in Maryland Elections,'” Gallagher wrote. “Although the company’s mission might theoretically be impeded by the alleged voting violations, the company does not appear to conduct any regular activities for achieving that mission besides bringing the instant lawsuit and conducting investigations to support the lawsuit. Therefore, the alleged harm is ‘simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests’ rather than a ‘concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities.'”

Gallagher added that both organizations lacked standing to represent their members.

“To maintain such standing, they must show that the ‘members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right,'” she wrote.

Gallagher noted that Missouri-based United Sovereign Americans did not “purport to represent any individual members” in Maryland.

“Maryland Election Integrity, on the other hand, consists of members who are registered voters in Maryland, including Kate Sullivan,” Gallagher wrote.

The judge added that the groups argued that the failure of the state board to follow state and federal law diluted the votes of others.

“Here, plaintiffs have not shown disadvantage to members of Maryland Election Integrity as individuals because the amended complaint lacks any information about whether Kate Sullivan or other members actually voted in any Maryland election, much less how defendant’s actions helped defeat their supported candidates or causes,” Gallagher wrote. “To the extent that plaintiffs are simply alleging that Defendant did not act in accordance with the law in administering the elections, any injury from those actions would accrue to every citizen and would not be particularized to members of Maryland Election Integrity.”

Gallagher wrote that the plaintiffs failed to “allege and concrete or particularized injury” to members of Maryland Election Integrity.

“Courts routinely find such grievances insufficient to demonstrate standing to sue,” she wrote.

Republish