# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 30 75

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bas im Sab ri; Mart y

Sch ul en be rg ; M oh am ed Cal i; Jay W eb b; Zach ary Met oyer

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

W hi tt ie r All ia nc e, a Mi nn es ot a n ot -fo r-p ro fit co rp or at io n; Cit y of M in ne ap ol is , a

m un ic ip al co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 16 , 20 16

Fi le d: Aug us t 1 9, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BRIGHT, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fi ve m e m

be rs of W hi tt ie r All ia nc e, a pr iv at e ne ig hb or ho od or ga ni zat io n,

br ou gh t t hi s ac ti on un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is an d t he

All ia nc e it se lf, al le gi ng vi ol at io n of th ei r Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. The y cl ai m th at

th e ci ty "co m

m an de d an d en co ur ag ed " th e m em be rs of th e All ia nc e to ad op t an

an ti de fam at io n bylaw whi ch un co ns ti tu ti on al ly res tri ct ed th e m em be rs ' free do m ofsp eech

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt s' m ot io ns to d i sm is s fo r la ck of 1

st an di ng an d s ta te act io n. We affi rm

.

I.

The W hi tt ie r All ia nc e is a pr iv at e no np ro fit or g a n i z a ti on in th e W hi tt ie r

ne ig hb or ho od in Mi nn eap ol is

. The or ga ni zat io n ho ld s co m m un it y m eet in gs , h o s t s

ev en ts an d act iv it ie s, an d pr es en ts fo ru m s an d se m in ars in t e n d ed to ed uc at e th e

ne ig hb or ho od ab ou t ci vi c en ga ge m en t. The or ga ni zat io n rece iv es fu nd s fro m pr iv at e

gr an ts

, do na ti on s, an d th e ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is th ro ug h th e Co m m un it y Part ic ip at io n

Pro gr am (CPP ). To r e c ei ve CPP fu nd in g, a ne ig hb or ho od or ga ni zat io n m us t be

in co rp or at ed

, ha ve bylaws an d a n e l e ct ed bo ard of di rect or s, an d "[e ]nsu re th at

m em be rs hi p in th e or ga ni zat io n is op en to al l res id en ts ." If an or ga ni zat io n's bylaws

do no t co m

pl y wit h th e CPP gu id el in es , th e ci ty m ay reco m m en d th at th e or ga ni zat io n

rev is e it s b y la ws an d m ay wit hd raw CPP fun di ng

.

In 20 14

, Bas im Sab ri, Mar ty Sch ul e n b e r g , Mo ha m ed Cal i, Ja y W eb b, an d

Zach ary Met oyer (ap pl ic an ts ) su bm it te d ap pl ic at io ns to se rv e on th e All ia nc e bo ard

. The ap pl ic an ts were m em be rs of W hi tt ie r All ia nc e an d in pa st y ears ha d vo ic ed th ei r

op po si ti on to wha t th ey co ns id ered to be raci st po li ci es of th e bo ard

. The ex ecu ti ve

d i r ect or of th e All ia nc e reject ed th e ap pl ic at io ns of Sab ri, Sch ul en be rg , Cal i, an d

W eb b on th e gr ou nd th at th ey ha d no t ha d a do cu m en te d hi st or y of en ga ge m en t wit h

th e o rg an iz at io n.

App el la nt s fil ed a gr ie va nc e wit h th e bo ard

, cl ai m in g th at it ha d im pl em en te d

po li ci es de li be rat el y de si gn ed to ex cl ud e raci al m in or it ie s fro m le ad ers hi p po si ti on s

an d th at it la ck ed au th or it y to reject th ei r ap pl ic at io ns ba s e d o n qu al ifi cat io ns no t

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-co nt ai ne d in t h e e x i s t i ng bylaws

. The bo ard de ni ed th e gr ie va nc e, an d ap pe ll an ts

so ug ht rev ie w th ro ug h th e CPP gr ie va n c e p r o ces s. The ci ty al so de ni ed th ei r

gr ie va nc e bu t "re qu ire [d ] W hi tt ie r All ia nc e to rev is e it s bylaws to be m or e ex pl ic it

on it s el ect io n pr oc es s an d th e qu al ifi cat io ns fo r bo ard can di da cy ." The ci ty as si gn ed

ne ig hb or ho od su pp or t sp eci al is t Mi ch el le Ch av ez to wor k wit h th e All ia nc e o n i ts
bylaws in ad va nc e o f th e n ex t an nu al m eet in g.

On Ja nu ary 12

, 20 15 th e m em be rs hi p of th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e vo te d to ap pr ov e

am en de d bylaws whi c h in cl ud ed a ne w req ui rem en t fo r bo ard can di da te s to sh ow

on go in g pa rti c i pa ti on wit h th e or ga ni zat io n an d at te nd an ce at m eet in gs du rin g th e

cu rren t y ear. The All ia nc e al so ap pr ov ed an an ti de fam at io n b ylaw req ui rin g th at

bo ard can di da te s m

us t "n ot ha ve co m

m it te d an act of m al ic e or de fam at io n ag ai ns t

th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e or an y m em be r of th e Bo ard of Dire ct or s or [h av e] ot he rwis e

di sr up te [d ] th e ai m s an d p ur po se s o f th e co rp or at io n."

App ellan ts di d no t su bm it ap pl ic at io ns fo r th e bo ard el ect io n he ld on Mar ch 26

, 20 15

. The y cl ai m th at th ei r d e c is io n no t to ap pl y was ba se d on th e di sc riminat or y

na tu re o f th e an ti de fam at io n b y la w whi ch th ey arg ue was i nt en de d t o e xc lu de th em

fro m ru nn in g fo r bo ard po si ti on s be cau se of th ei r cri ti cal sp eech ab ou t th e in cu m be nt

bo ard

. To ch al le ng e th e ne w bylaw, ap pe ll an ts fil ed th is § 19 83 act io n al le gi ng th at

th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e an d th e ci ty o f Mi nn eap ol is ha d ad o p t e d p o l ic ie s de si gn ed to

de pr iv e th em of th ei r rig ht s un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t an d Mi nn

. St at

. § 36 3A.1 7( 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e, co nc lu di ng th at ap pe ll an ts la ck ed st an di ng an d

th at th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e was no t act in g un de r co lo r of st at e la w. App el la nt s th en

br ou gh t th is ap pe al co nt en di ng th ey ha ve st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of th e an ti de fam at io n b y la w.

-3

-II.

W e rev ie w d e no vo a di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s, " acce pt in g

as tru e al l fact ua l al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty." Top ch ia n v. JP Mo rg an Ch as e Ban k, N.A., 76 0

F.3 d 8 43 , 84 8 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The in it ia l qu es ti on is whe th er ap pe ll an ts h a v e s t a n di ng to rai se th ei r Fi rs t

Am en dm en t clai m s. Fo r st an di ng a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at "h e or sh e ha s su ffer ed

an 'in jury i n f a c t ' th at is 'co nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ' an d 'act ua l or im m in en t, no t

co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al .'" Co ns ti tu ti on Part y of So ut h Dak ot a v. Nels on , 63 9 F.3 d

41 7, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Lujan v. Defen de rs of W il dl ife

, 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 56 0
(1 99 2) ). In ad di ti on , a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at su ch in

jury is "fa irl y tra ceab le " to th e

ch al le ng ed co nd uc t an d th at it is "'l ik el y [to ] be red res se d by a fav or ab le de ci si on .'"

Brad en v. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c., 58 8 F.3d 58 5, 59 1 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Lujan

, 50 4 U.S. at 56 0– 61 ). A pl ai nt iff 's bu rd en to es ta bl is h st an di ng de pe nd s on th e st ag e

of li ti ga ti on , an d at th e m ot io n to di sm is s st ag e, "we 'pr es um [e] th at g e n eral

al le ga ti on s em

br ace th os e sp eci fic fact s th at are ne ces sa ry to su pp or t th e [p la in ti ff's ]

cl ai m .'" W ie la nd v. U.S. Dep't of He al th an d Hu m an Serv ., 79 3 F.3 d 94 9, 95 4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at 56 1)

.

App el lants ar gue tha t th e All ia nc e's an ti de fam at io n bylaw is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

o v erb ro ad be cau se it gi ve s th e bo ard un fet te red di sc ret io n to di sq ua li fy a n y b o a r d

can di da te it de te rm in es ha s co m m it te d an act of m al ic e or de fama t i on or ot he rwis e

di sr up te d th e ai m s an d pu rp os es of th e or ga ni zat io n. "A pl ai nt iff who ha s es ta bl is he d

co ns ti tu ti on al in

jury und er a p ro vi si on of a st at ut e as ap pl ie d to hi s set of fact s m ay

al so bri ng a faci al ch al le ng e, un de r th e [Fi rs t Am en dm en t] ov erb read th do ct rin e, to

vi nd ic at e th e rig ht s of ot he rs no t be fo re th e co ur t un de r th at pr ov is io n." CAMP Leg al

Defen se Fu nd

, In c. v. C i t y o f A tl an ta

, 45 1 F.3 d 12 57

, 12 71 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ); se e

Sh ut tl es wor th v. Ci ty of Bi rm in gh a m, 3 94 U.S. 14 7, 15 0– 52 (1 96 9) (v al id faci al

-4

-ov erb read th cl ai m whi ch ch al le n g ed or di na nc e de le ga ti ng "v irt ua ll y un br id le d an d

ab so lu te " d is cret io na ry

po wer t o c it y

co m m is si on ).

Here, the an ti de fam at io n bylaw res tri ct s ap pe ll an ts ' ab il it y as m em be rs of th e

All ia nc e to vo te fo r th e bo ard can di da te of th ei r ch oi ce. W e he ld in McLai n v. Mei er

th at th e a pp el la nt ha d st an di ng "i n hi s cap aci ty as a vo te r" to ch al le ng e th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Nor th Dak ot a's ba ll ot acce ss la ws. See 85 1 F.2 d 10 45

, 10 48 (8 th

Ci r. 19 88 ). In th at cas e, we co nc lu de d th at th e pl ai nt iff ha d su ffer ed " in jury as a

vo te r" be cau se "h is ab il it y to vo te fo r th e can di da te of hi s ch oi ce" ha d be en res tri ct ed
by th e ba ll ot acce ss la ws. See id .; se e al so Mi ll er v. Mo or e, 16 9 F.3 d 11 19

, 11 23 (8 th

Ci r. 19 99 ) (p la in ti ffs ha d st an di ng as vo te rs to ch al le ng e st at e ba ll ot acce ss la w

be cau se it wou ld "d im in is h[ ] th e li ke li ho od th at

. . . . th ei r ch oi ce [wo ul d] pr ev ai l" ).

W hi le th e pl ai nt iff ha d at te m pt ed to ru n fo r of

fic e, th e st at e la ws ha d pr ev en te d hi m

fro m ap pe ari ng on th e b a l l o t, an d th us he was un ab le to vo te fo r hi m se lf. See

McLai n, 8 51 F.2d at 1 04 8.

Si m il arl y in th is cas e, th e an t i d e fam at io n bylaw pr ev en ts ap pe ll an ts fro m

vo ti ng fo r th em se lv es or an y o t h e r c a n di da te s who m ig ht be co ns id ered m al ic io us

cri ti cs by th e bo ard

. Alt ho ug h th e pr im ary im pa ct of th e bylaws m ay be on th e bo ard

can di da te s, "t he rig ht s of vo te rs an d th e rig ht s of can di da te s do no t le nd th em se lv es

to ne at se pa rat io n; la ws th at affe ct can di da te s al way s ha ve at le as t so m e th eo ret ic al

,

co rrel at iv e effe ct on vo te rs ." Bu ll oc k v. Cart er, 40 5 U.S. 13 4, 14 3 (1 97 2)

. Alt ho ug h

ap pe ll an t s do no t di rect ly al le ge vo te r st an di ng in th ei r co m pl ai nt

, we m ay lo ok to

mat te rs ou ts id e th e pl ead in gs to de te rm in e whe th er st an di ng ex is ts

. See Osb o r n v

. Uni te d St at es , 91 8 F.2 d 72 4, 72 8 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). Here, ap pe ll an ts al le ge th at th ey

are "m em be rs " of W hi tt ie r All ia nc e, se e Co m pl

. ¶ 2, an d th e bylaws pe rm it m em be rs

to vo te in All ia nc e el ect io ns , se e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e By la ws, Art. III, Sec. 3. Drawi ng

al l reas on ab le in fere nc e s i n fav or of ap pe ll an ts

, we co nc lu de th at ap pe ll an ts ha ve

su ffer ed su ffi ci en t in

jury as vo ti ng m em

be rs of th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e. See Top ch ia n,

76 0 F .3d at 8 48 ; Wiel an d, 7 93 F.3d at 9 54

.

-5

-App el la nt s ha ve al so sa ti sf ie d th e ot he r two req ui red el em en ts to es ta bl is h

st an di ng

. The ir as se rt e d i n ju r y m ay be tra ced to th e ob jecte d bylaw an d co ul d be

red res se d by th e rel ie f th ey se ek

. See Brad en , 58 8 F.3 d at 59 1. Si nc e th ey ha ve

st an di ng to rai se an as ap pl ie d ch al le ng e to th e an ti de fam at io n bylaw, th ey m ay al so

ch al le ng e it s ov erb read th in a faci al ch al le ng e. See CAMP Leg al Defen se Fu nd

, 45 1

F.3 d at 12 71

. Nev ert he le ss , th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e co nt en ds th at ap pe ll an ts fai le d to

ex ha us t th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. App el la nt s co nc ed e th ey di d no t fil e a

gr ie va nc e wit h th e ci ty regar di ng th e 2 01 5 b y la ws, an nu al m eet in g, o r el ect io n, bu t

th ey po in t ou t th at a p a r t y g en eral ly n eed no t ha ve ex ha us te d st at e rem ed ie s be fo re

br in gi ng a § 19 83 cl ai m

. See Pat sy v. Bd

. of Reg en ts of St at e of Fl a., 45 7 U.S. 49 6,

50 0 (1 98 2)

. W e co nc lu de th at ap pe ll an ts ha ve su ffi ci en t st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e

co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of t he bylaw.

III.

To es ta bl is h a § 19 83 cl ai m, ap pe ll an ts m us t al so sh ow th at th ey ha ve be en

de pr iv ed of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht by a pe rs on act in g un de r co lo r of st at e la w. Lug ar

v. Edm on ds on Oil Co

., 45 7 U.S. 92 2, 94 2 (1 98 2)

. A pr iv at e p a r t y i s co ns id ered a

st at e act or if th e al le ge d de pr iv at io n was "ca us ed by th e ex erci se of so me r i gh t or

pr iv il eg e crea te d by th e [s ]tate or by a ru le of co nd u c t im po se d by th e st at e or by a

pe rs on fo r who m th e [s ]tate is res po ns ib le ." Id

. at 93 7. A st at e's "[m ]ere ap pr ov al of

or acq ui es cen ce in th e in it ia ti ve s of a pr iv at e pa rty" do es no t am ou nt to st at e act io n.

Bl um v. Yare ts ky, 457 U.S. 99 1, 1 00 4 (1 98 2)

.

App el la nt s cl ai m th at th e ci ty was res po ns ib le fo r th e de pr iv at io n of th ei r rig ht s

be cau se it co m

m an de d an d en co ur ag ed th e All ia nc e by "ex erci s[ in g] co erci ve po wer"

or ov ert ly or co ve rtl y "s ig ni fic an t[l y ] en co ur ag [in g]" it to act un co ns ti tu ti on al ly. See

id

. App el la nt s arg ue th at th e ci ty en co ur ag ed th e ad op ti on of th e 20 15 di sc riminat or y bylaw by ad op ti ng a gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur e an d req ui rin g ne ig hb or ho od or ga ni zat io ns

to ha ve de m oc rat ic pr oc es se s an d e l e ct io ns as a "p reco nd it io n" fo r th e rece ip t of

-6

-pu bl ic fu nd s. Mer e reg ul at io n do es no t co nv ert a pr iv at e or ga ni zat io n's act io ns in to

st at e act io n, ho wev er, " e v en if [th e reg ul at io n is ] ex te ns iv e an d de ta il ed ." See

Ren de ll -Bak er v. Koh n, 45 7 U.S. 83 0, 84 1 (1 98 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Fu rth erm or e, th e fact th at th e ci ty req ui red W hi tt ie r All ia nc e to ha ve op en an d

de m oc rat ic pr oc es se s do es no t sh ow th at th e c i t y en co ur ag ed th e All ia nc e to

di sc riminat e. Cf. Adi ck es v. S.H. Kres s C o., 3 98 U.S. 14 4, 1 50 –5 3 (1 97 0)

.

App el la nt s al so arg ue th at th e ci ty us ed it s co erci ve po wer to co m pe l W hi tt ie r

All ia nc e to ad op t th e an ti de fam at io n bylaw by req ui rin g it to cl ari fy it s bylaws aft er

ap pe ll an ts fil ed th ei r 20 14 gr ie va nc e. We c o n c l u d e th at th e reco m m en da ti on to

am en d th e bylaws was no t co erci ve , ho wev er, be cau se th e ci ty di d no t an d co ul d no t

m an da te th e pa ss ag e of an y pa rti cu la r b y la w. It co ul d at m os t wit hh ol d fu nd s if it

pe rcei ve d a co nf

li ct be twee n th e bylaws an d th e CPP gu id el in es

. See Ch av ez Aff.

¶ 2 , Marc h 3 1, 2 01 5; Sarf Aff., Mar ch 31 , 20 15 , Ex. 1, Th e 2 01 4- 20 16 Co m m un it y

Part ic ip at io n Pro gr am Gui de li ne s, I(B) ¶ 1 & IV(A) ¶ 4. The rece ip t of pu bl ic fu nd s

di d no t co n ve rt th e pr iv at e act io ns by th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e in to st at e act io n. See

Ren de ll -Bak er, 4 57 U.S. at 8 40

.

Fi na ll y , ap pe ll an ts co nt en d th at th e ci ty u s ed it s co erci ve po wer to as si gn it s

own em pl oyee Mi c he ll e Ch av ez to pa rti ci pa te in rewri ti ng th e All ia nc e bylaws

. Ch av ez rev ie wed th e pr op os ed bylaws fo r th e pu rp os e of id en ti fy in g an y c o n f l ic t

be twee n th em an d th e CPP gu id el in es , bu t sh e di d no t pr op os e an y a men dm en ts to

th em

. Her rev ie w fel l well be lo w a n y t h r es ho ld sh owi ng th at th e ci ty ha d

"s ig ni fic an t[l y ] en co ur ag e[d ]" th e All ia nc e to pa ss a pa rti cu la r bylaw. See Bl um , 45 7

U.S. at 1 00 4.

IV.

W e co nc lu de th at th e ad op ti on of th e 20 15 bylaws by th e W hi tt ie r All ia nc e di d

no t am ou nt to st at e act io n. We th eref or e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t's jud gm en t.

-7

-SHEPHERD, con cu rri ng in pa rt a nd di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

I co nc ur wit h th e co ur t’s de ci si on to affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th e App el la nt s’ com

pl ai nt , ho wev er I wo ul d b as e th e d is m is sa l on th e App el la nt s’ lac k

of st an di ng . Thu s, I d is se nt fro m sec ti on II o f th e m ajor it y ’s op in io n.

App el la nt s do no t ha ve st an di ng in th is m at te r be cau se th ey fai le d to ap pl y to

ru n fo r Bo ard of D i r e c t o r p o s it io ns aft er th e ad op ti on of th e co nt es te d bylaw. See

Bern be ck v. Gale

, No. 15 -1 98 3, 20 16 W L 37 69 48 1 at *3 (8 th Ci r

. J u l y 1 4, 20 16 )
(h ol di ng pl ai nt iff la ck ed s t a n di ng whe n he fai le d to pe rfo rm “ th e act s ne ces sa ry to

br in g hi s i nju ry

in to ex is te nc e” whe n he di d no t su bm it a si gn ed pe ti ti on an d ha d it
reject ed fo r fai lu re to co m pl y wit h N e b r a s ka ’s si gn at ur e-d is tri bu ti on req ui rem en t);

Mo

. Ro un dt ab le fo r Life v. Carn ah an , 67 6 F.3 d 66 5, 67 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co nc lu di ng pl ai nt iff la ck ed st an di ng be cau se it di d no t ha ve a co nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed in jury

whe re pl ai nt if

f fai le d to al le ge or pr es en t ev id en ce th at “ it ev er tri ed to ob ta in

si gn at ur es in su pp or t of it s pr op os al s, th at it was ev er p r e v e n t ed fro m ci rcu la ti ng

p e t it io ns , th at th e of

fic ia l ba ll ot ti tl es co nf

us ed or m is le d vo te rs , or th at an y vo te r s

were un ab le or unwi lli ng to co nsi der Ro un dt ab le ’s pr op os al s” ); Pu ck et v. Hot Sp rin gs

Sch

. Dis t. No. 23 -2

, 52 6 F.3 d 11 51

, 11 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ [I]f a pl ai nt iff is req ui red

to m eet a pr eco nd it io n or fo ll ow a cert ai n pr oc ed ur e to en ga ge in an act iv it y or en joy

a be ne fit an d fai ls to at te m pt to do so , th at pl ai nt iff la ck s st an di ng to su e be cau se he

or sh e sh ou ld ha ve at l eas t t ak en st ep s t o a tt em pt to sat is fy

th e p reco nd it io n.” ).

Fu rth er mo r e , App el la nt s do no t as se rt st an di ng on th e ba si s of th ei r cap aci ty

as vo te rs in th ei r co m

pl ai nt

, in res po ns e to th e m ot io n to di sm is s, or in th ei r br ie fin g

on ap pe al

. See Bern be ck

, No. 15 -1 98 3, 20 1 6 WL 3 7 6 9 4 81 at *4 (rejec ti ng vo te r

st at us as a ba si s fo r st an di ng whe re th e co ur t co ul d fin d “ [n ]owhe re in th e co m pl ai nt

n o r i n th e reco rd

. . . an y av erm en t or ev id en ce th at [th e pl ai nt iff ] is reg is t e r e d t o

vo te .”).

-8

-Acco rd in gl y , fin di ng th at App el la nt s d o no t ha ve st an di ng , I ag ree wit h th e

di st ric t co ur t th at th e co m pl ai nt sh ou ld be di sm is se d o n th at ba si s, an d I wou ld no t

reac h t he m eri ts of t he 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-