Page:Gohmert v. Pence (6 20-cv-660-JDK) (2021) Order.pdf/12

 alleged injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. But here, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as to the manner of the Vice President’s electoral vote count. See Docket No. 1 ¶ 73. Such relief will not resolve their alleged harm with respect to Governor Ducey’s electoral vote certification. See Docket No. 2 at 7. As the Supreme Court has long held, “a federal court can act only to redress injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and not injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon, 426 U.S. at 41–42; see also El Paso Cnty., 982 F.3d at 343 (plaintiff lacks standing where an order granting the requested relief “would not rescind,” and “accordingly would not redress,” the allegedly harmful act).

Even if their injury were the loss of the right to vote in the Electoral College, see Docket No. 2 at 6, Plaintiffs’ requested relief would not redress that injury. Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to order the Vice President to count the Nominee-Electors’ votes, but rather that the Vice President “exercise the exclusive authority and sole discretion in determining which electoral votes to count for a given State,” or alternatively, to decide that no Arizona electoral votes should count. See Docket No. 1 ¶ 73. It is well established that a plaintiff lacks standing where it is “uncertain that granting [the plaintiff] the relief it wants would remedy its injuries.” ''Inclusive Comtys. Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury'', 946 F.3d 649, 657–58 (5th Cir. 2019).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Nominee-Electors lack standing.