Page:King v. Whitmer (20-13134) (2020) Opinion and Order.pdf/28

 This is so because the Elections Clause grants rights to “the Legislature” of “each State.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. The Supreme Court interprets the words “the Legislature,” as used in that clause, to mean the lawmaking bodies of a state. Ariz. State Legislature, 135 S.Ct. at 2673. The Elections Clause, therefore, grants rights to state legislatures and to other entities to which a State may delegate lawmaking authority. See id. at 2668. Plaintiffs’ Elections Clause claims thus belong, if to anyone, Michigan’s state legislature. ''Bognet v. Secy. Commonwealth of Pa.'', -- F.3d. --, 2020 WL 6686120, *7 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiffs here are six presidential elector nominees; they are not a part of Michigan’s lawmaking bodies nor do they have a relationship to them.

To support their contention that they have standing, Plaintiffs point to Carson v. Simon, 78 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020), a decision finding that electors had standing to bring challenges under the Electors Clause. (ECF No. 7 at Pg ID 1839 (citing Carson, 978 F.3d at 1057).) In that case, which was based on the specific content and contours of Minnesota state law, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that because “the plain text of Minnesota law treats prospective electors as candidates,” it too would treat presidential elector nominees as candidates. Carson, 78 F.3d at 1057. This Court, however, is as unconvinced about the majority’s holding in Carson as the dissent: I am not convinced the Electors have Article III standing to assert claims under the Electors Clause. Although