top of page

Courts Bury Their Head in the Sand and Decide “No Standing” in Election Lawsuits

By James P. Randisi

"The concept of “standing” broadly refers to a litigant’s right to have a court rule upon the merits of claims for which judicial relief is sought. The Supreme Court has held that a litigant must have “standing” to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court so that the court may exercise its “remedial powers" on his behalf... In general, for a party to establish standing, the party must allege (and ultimately prove) that he has a genuine stake in the outcome of the case because the party has personally suffered (or will imminently suffer): (1) a concrete and particularized injury; (2) that is traceable to the allegedly unlawful actions of the opposing party; and (3) that is redressable by a favorable judicial decision."

Numerous courts nationwide have recently made significant rulings regarding lawsuits involving allegedly flawed voter rolls, issuing "no standing" decisions, which effectively deny plaintiffs the opportunity to present their cases in court. This refusal to entertain claims of harm stemming from defective voter rolls is a matter of grave concern, as these inaccuracies can potentially compromise the integrity of elections.

One such lawsuit emerged in Maryland, where plaintiffs filed against the state's Board of Elections, citing over 79,000 irregularities in the voter rolls. Federal law permits an error rate of 1 in 125,000 ballots, translating to just 24 acceptable errors if the election laws were appropriately enforced in Maryland.

The lawsuit’s allegations were meticulously supported by data compiled by data scientists and a statistically representative sample of voters statewide. This robust sampling provides a 95% confidence rate with a margin of error of 3.37%, reinforcing the seriousness of the claims made.

It is extremely concerning that courts simply dismiss election lawsuits by deciding “no standing” on the part of plaintiffs.

Do we, as voters, not have a stake in the outcome of elections if the election process does not afford an election within the error rate prescribed by federal law? Are we, as voters, not injured by a system that is potentially wrought with errors? Definite yes to both questions.

So, what actions can be taken? It's imperative that voters actively engage in the electoral process by educating themselves about candidates, exercising their right to vote, and vigilantly monitoring election proceedings. Resources such as those available at can offer valuable guidance in this endeavor. By actively participating in and advocating for transparent and accurate elections, voters can play a crucial role in safeguarding the democratic foundation of our nation.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit have filed an appeal after receiving the “no standing” decision from the federal district court judge. Please consider helping with costs of the appeal by visiting  

16 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page