Court Opinion

ID: 9909230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 19:01:15.470501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:21.002421
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 12 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARC THIELMAN; et al.,                          No.   23-35452

                Plaintiffs-Appellants,          D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01516-SB

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LAVONNE GRIFFIN-VALADE, in her
official capacity as Oregon Secretary of
State; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                 Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 6, 2023 **
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated against the Oregon Secretary of State and twelve Oregon counties,

challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s computerized vote tabulation and vote-

       *     This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
by-mail systems. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack

of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a

cognizable injury-in-fact. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. World Cap. Mkt., Inc., 864 F.3d 996, 1003

(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      This Court recently considered and rejected claims similar to those Plaintiffs

assert here. See Lake v. Fontes, 83 F.4th 1199 (9th Cir. 2023). Plaintiffs allege that

they are injured by “a lack of confidence in the integrity of the election system.” 1

But that alleged injury represents nothing more than the “kind of speculation that

stretches the concept of imminence beyond its purpose.” Lake, 83 F.4th at 1204

(quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs do not allege that their votes were not counted,

nor do they identify with sufficient particularity how any given election in Oregon

was fraudulently manipulated through the vote-by-mail or computerized tabulation

systems. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede that they do not know whether Oregon elections

are fraudulently manipulated at all. Plaintiffs allege only that they suffer a “crisis of

confidence” in Oregon’s voting systems, which is the same “speculative” grievance

that we found insufficient to confer standing in Lake. Id. at 1201 (quotation marks

omitted). Plaintiffs’ “conjectural allegations of potential injuries are insufficient to

1 To the extent that Plaintiffs’ complaint also asserted a vote-dilution theory of
injury, they have expressly disclaimed that theory on appeal.

                                           2
plead a plausible real and immediate threat of election manipulation,” id. at 1204

(quotation marks omitted), as the district court correctly concluded in dismissing

their claims.

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3