Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/27

 But where, as here, the only injury Plaintiffs have alleged is that the Elections Clause has not been followed, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that “[the] injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that [courts] have refused to countenance.” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007). Because Plaintiffs “assert no particularized stake in the litigation,” Plaintiffs fail to establish injury-in-fact and thus standing to bring their Elections Clause and Electors Clause claims. Id.; see also Johnson v. Bredesen, 356 F. App’x 781, 784 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Lance, 549 U.S. at 441-42) (affirming district court’s conclusion that citizens did not allege injury-in-fact to support standing for claim that the state of Tennessee violated constitutional law).