Page:Wood v. Raffensperger (20-14418) (2020) Decision.pdf/9

 U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Article III of the Constitution establishes that our jurisdiction—that is, our judicial power—reaches only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Absent a justiciable case or controversy between interested parties, we lack the “power to declare the law.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998).

When someone sues in federal court, he bears the burden of proving that his suit falls within our jurisdiction. ''Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.'', 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Wood had the choice to sue in state or federal court. Georgia law makes clear that post-election litigation may proceed in a state court. Ga. Code Ann. §§ 21-2-499(b), 21-2-524(a). But Wood chose to sue in federal court. In doing so, he had to prove that his suit presents a justiciable controversy under Article III of the Constitution. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (listing examples of problems that preclude our jurisdiction). He failed to satisfy this burden.

We divide our discussion in two parts. We first explain why Wood lacks standing to sue. We then explain that, even if he had standing, his requests to recount and delay certification of the November election results are moot. Because this case is not justiciable, we lack jurisdiction. Id. And because we lack the power to entertain this appeal, we will not address the other issues the parties raise.