Opinion ID: 895342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Most of the voters' Article VI, section 4 claims involve generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government acts.

Text: The voters' standing to pursue an equal protection claim does not translate into standing for their remaining claims. Instead, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief that is sought. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (citations and quotations omitted). In additional to the equal protection clause, the voters complain that the Secretary has violated two other constitutional provisions. The first, article VI, section 4, states: In all elections by the people, the vote shall be by ballot, and the Legislature shall provide for the numbering of tickets and make such other regulations as may be necessary to detect and punish fraud and preserve the purity of the ballot box; and the Legislature shall provide by law for the registration of all voters. TEX. CONST. art. VI, § 4. This provision has four requirements: (1) votes shall be by secret ballot, (2) ballots shall be numbered, (3) the Legislature shall enact such other regulations as necessary to detect and punish fraud and preserve the purity of the ballot box, and (4) the Legislature may provide, by law, for the registration of voters in all cities. Wood v. State ex rel. Lee, 133 Tex. 110, 126 S.W.2d 4, 8 (1939). [23] The voters complain that the Secretary has violated the first three provisions. First, they assert that the eSlate deprives them of a secret ballot. These allegations differ from the general thrust of the voters' claims, in that they do not complain specifically about the lack of a contemporaneous paper record of a vote cast. Instead, although the voters do not dispute that the eSlate permits them to cast secret ballots, they argue that the device is vulnerable to hackers, compromising vote secrecy. They also complain that the eSlate's audio output, available for disabled voters, can be overheard at a significant distance using only a shortwave radio. Second, the voters allege that the eSlate's lack of a paper ballot violates the constitutional requirement that ballots be numbered. Although the eSlate numbers ballots, the voters contend that failing to require a paper ballot undermines the framers' intent in drafting the numbering requirementa requirement they claim was intended to secure the integrity of the election process. Assuming, as we must, that these allegations are true, they amount only to a generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens. See, e.g., Landes v. Tartaglione, No. 04-3163, 2004 WL 2415074, -2, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22458, -5 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 28, 2004) (holding that voter lacked standing to complain of electronic voting machines that might malfunction or be tampered with), aff'd, 153 Fed.Appx. 131 (3d Cir.2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1040, 126 S.Ct. 1622, 164 L.Ed.2d 334 (2006). The voters' complaint that the lack of a contemporaneous paper record violates the spirit of the constitution is the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that courts cannot adjudicate. Lance, 549 U.S. at 442, 127 S.Ct. 1194. The voters' secret ballot allegations involve only hypothetical harm, not the concrete, particularized injury standing requires. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299, 304-05 (Tex.2008). All voting systems are subject to criminal manipulation, but there is no evidence or allegation that the eSlate has ever been manipulated in any Travis County election. Nor is there any proof that a Travis County disabled voter was deprived of the right to a secret ballot. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary: Travis County adopted the eSlate in part to comply with federal regulations aimed at facilitating the participation of the disabled in the voting process. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545; see also Tokaji, 73 FORDHAM L.REV. at 1803 (noting that disabled voters have the most to gain from implementation of DRE systems). Not only does this last allegation fall within the generalized grievance category, [24] but it violates the prudential standing requirement that a plaintiff assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Warth, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197. The voters lack standing to bring these claims. See WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 3531.10 (noting that absent a more direct individual injury, violation of the Constitution does not itself establish standing). [25] Finally, the voters assert that the lack of a contemporaneous paper record neither provides a means of detecting and punishing fraud, nor preserves the purity of the ballot box. But we have held that the purity of the ballot box provision requires only that the Legislature pass laws as necessary to deter fraud and protect ballot purity: This constitutional provision is addressed to the sound discretion of the Legislature, and [i]t is not for the courts to attempt to direct what laws the Legislature shall enact to comply with it. Wood, 126 S.W.2d at 9. The voters do not complain that the Legislature has failed to do so; to the contrary, they admit that it has. In the trial court, they alleged [p]laintiffs do not find fault with the Code, or request that the Court rewrite it. The issue here is with the Secretary's application of the discretion provided him [sic] by the legislature. Without more, the voters have not alleged a violation of article VI, section 4.