Page:Gohmert v. Pence (6 20-cv-660-JDK) (2021) Order.pdf/10

 Accordingly, the Court finds that Congressman Gohmert lacks standing to bring the claim alleged here.

The Nominee-Electors argue that they have standing under the Electors Clause “as candidates for the office of Presidential Elector because, under Arizona law, a vote cast for the Republican Party’s President and Vice President is cast for the Republican Presidential Electors.” Docket No. 2 at 6 (citing § 16212). The Nominee-Electors were injured, Plaintiffs contend, when Governor Ducey unlawfully certified and transmitted the “competing slate of Biden electors” to be counted in the Electoral College. Id. at 7.

This alleged injury, however, is not fairly traceable to any act of the Vice President. Nor is it an injury likely to be redressed by a favorable decision here. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180–81. The Court need not decide whether the Nominee-Electors were “candidates” under Arizona law. Plaintiffs cite Carson v. Simon, in which the Eighth Circuit held that prospective presidential electors are “candidates” under Minnesota law and have standing to challenge how votes are tallied in Minnesota. 978 F.3d 1051, 1057 (8th Cir. 2020). But the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona has distinguished Carson, holding that presidential electors in Arizona are ministerial and are “not candidates for office as the term is generally understood” under Arizona law. Bowyer v. Ducey, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2020 WL 7238261, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020); see also Feehan v. Wis. Elections Comm’n, No. 20-CV-1771-PP, 2020 WL 7250219, at *12 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2020) (nominee-elector is not a candidate under Wisconsin law). “Arizona law makes clear that the duty of an Elector is to fulfill a ministerial function, which is extremely limited in scope and duration, and that they have no discretion to deviate at all from the duties imposed by the statute.” Bowyer, 2020 WL 7238261, at *4 (citing § 16-212(c)). Arizona voters, moreover, vote “for their preferred presidential candidate,” not any single elector listed next to the presidential candidates’ names. Id. (citing § 16-507(b)). The court in Bowyer therefore held that nominee-electors in Arizona lacked standing to sue state officials for alleged voting irregularities. See id. In any event, even if the Nominee-Electors had standing to sue state officials to redress the injury alleged here, they have not done so. Plaintiffs have named only the Vice President, and they have not shown “a fairly traceable connection between [their] injury and the complained-of conduct of defendant.” E.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Plaintiffs do not allege that the Vice President had any involvement in the “certification and transmission of a competing