Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02739/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02739-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Independent Party
Plaintiff
John Arntz
Defendant
Suzanne Bushnell
Plaintiff
Clara Daims
Plaintiff
Tim Dupuis
Defendant
Alex Padilla
Defendant
Voting Rights Defense Project
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VOTING RIGHTS DEFENSE PROJECT,

AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY,

CLARA DAIMS, and SUZANNE

BUSHNELL,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALEX PADILLA, in his official capacity

as Secretary of State and an indispensable

party, TIM DUPUIS, in his official

capacity as chief of the Alameda County

Registrar of Voters, JOHN ARNTZ, in his

official capacity as Director of the San

Francisco Board of Elections, and DOES

I–X,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-02739 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking injunctive relief pertaining to the California

presidential primary, which has come and gone as of June 7. The specific relief sought

pertained to the dissemination of information regarding the availability of so-called “crossover

ballots” to voters that had declined to affiliate with a political party upon registering to vote (or

who had later withdrawn such an affiliation). Crossover ballots allowed these no-partypreference voters to vote in the presidential primaries of the Democratic Party, the American

Independent Party, or the Libertarian Party, each of which had elected to accept crossover

ballots. (The Republican Party did not.) Plaintiffs contend the information disseminated by

certain election officials, including our defendants, inadequately informed no-party-preference

voters of the availability of crossover ballots and other related procedures.

Case 3:16-cv-02739-WHA Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

At a hearing on June 1, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. 

A memorandum opinion followed the next day (Dkt. No. 46). 

Defendants now move to dismiss the action because (i) the relief sought is now moot,

(ii) plaintiffs lack standing, and (iii) plaintiffs fail to state a claim. Plaintiffs do not respond to

any of the arguments raised in the motions to dismiss, but instead seek to amend their

complaint. 

This action is plainly moot — the primary has already occurred. To the extent plaintiffs

seek to amend their complaint to address the 2020 presidential primaries, any claim based

thereon is far from ripe. We do not yet know if any political party will allow crossover ballots,

nor do we know if our defendants will reinstate the practices complained of herein.

Thus, because the action is moot and any proposed amendment would be futile,

defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02739-WHA Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2