Case: Dimaio v. Democratic National Committee

This is a case about a registered voter's issue with the Democratic National Convention's decision to eliminate the number of delegates that the state of Florida had to the national convention unless the Florida Democratic Party modified the date of its primary elections to comply with the Democratic National Convention's rules.

On August 30, 2007, a registered Democratic voter in the state of Florida filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff sued the Democratic National Committee and the Florida Democratic Party under the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment and under Article II of the Constitution. Represented by counsel, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment determining the rights and obligations of the parties. He claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when the Democratic National Committee imposed its sanction for violating its rule.

Pursuant to the rules of the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"), no state presidential preference primary election may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June, in the calendar year of the national convention, except for in the states of New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. The rules also provide that the DNC may impose sanctions for violations by a state of these rules, including elimination of the number of delegates the state has to the national convention. In 2007, the State of Florida enacted a law which provided that political parties shall, on the last Tuesday in January in each year the number of which is a multiple of four, "elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such part for President of the United Staes or select delegates to the national nominating convention, as provided by party rule." In 2008, that date would be January 29th. Because such a law violates the DNC rule that primary elections be held prior to the first Tuesday in February, on August 25, 2008, the DNC members voted not to allow Florida to seat delegates at the national convention unless the State Democratic Party moved its contest back at least seven days from the current January 29, 2008 date. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that the DNC imposing such sanctions "may be violating his rights under Article II and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution." He further alleged that the Florida Democratic Party had an obligation to its members in the state to ensure that its members are represented at the national convention and are allowed to participate in selecting the Democratic nominee for president. Plaintiff also stated in his complaint that the DNC rule that permits its members to adopt an alternative delegate system selection that does not violate its rules (selecting a new, earlier date) "may or may not violate the Plaintiff’s right to vote in a Presidential primary election as provided for in the laws of the state where he resides." The plaintiff's complaint concluded by writing that if the decision of the DNC violated his constitutional rights, "it would be appropriate for this court to make such a finding" and if they did not violate his constitutional rights, it would be appropriate for the court to determine whether the DNC and Florida Democratic Party may implement an alternative delegate selection system that complies with DNC rules. 

Less than one week after filing his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on September 5, 2007. In the motion, the plaintiff asked the court to declare that he was legally entitled to vote on January 29, 2008 in the party's statewide presidential preference primary, and that the delegates elected on that date are legally entitled to vote at the party's national nominating convention. He argued that action by the defendants were "governmental actions" for purposes of enforcing Article II and Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, he argued that both the Florida Democratic Party and the DNC "are agents of the state insofar as they determine the participants in a primary election (as well as the general election), and must not violate the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff in performing their duties." That same day, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment for two reasons. First, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because he had not affected service of process on the defendants. Second, a party seeking a declaratory judgement may not move for summary judgment until after 20 days from the commencement of the action. 

On September 25, 2007, the defendants both filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The DNC argued as follows: (1) the facts stated in the complaint did not establish that DNC acted under color of state law and therefore, it could not violate the 14th Amendment; (2) it was well-established that the national political parties have a constitutionally-protected right to determine the method of selection of delegates to their national conventions and states did not have the power to require parties to recognize the results of state-run primaries in the selection of delegates; and there was no countervailing right on the part of an individual voter to dictate the method of delegate selection or to use the courts to do so; and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaratory judgment because he did not assert that the DNC's actions actually violated any law or that he has been injured by such action, rather, he asked for an advisory opinion. The Florida Democratic Party argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to establish injury in fact from any action taken by the Florida Democratic Party and any allegations were mere speculation as to whether or not his constitutional rights have been violated. The Florida Democratic Party asserted that the plaintiff himself even alleged that the Florida Democratic Party had no obligation to ensure compliance with the rules of the DNC and the DNC was a private association that may choose to define their associational rights by limiting who can participate in any delegate selection process. The Florida Democratic Party also argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because Article II does not confer any type of actionable right upon an individual voter and the Florida Democratic Party was a private actor and thus cannot be subject to actions brought under the 14th Amendment. 

On October 5, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, finding that allowing him to amend to cure the deficiencies would be an exercise in futility. The Court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring his complaint. For the plaintiff to have had standing, he would have had to have suffered an injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical. It must also be likely, not speculative, that the plaintiff's injury will be redressed by a favorable decision by the court. The fact that the plaintiff in this action invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act in support of relief from the Court did not relieve him of the burden of satisfying the constitutional prerequisite for standing. The plaintiff in this case did not assert any actual or real controversy with the defendants, but instead, wrote that they "may or may not" be violating his rights. Such allegations are mere speculation. The plaintiff also is asking the Court for an advisory opinion with respect to actions and obligations of the defendants, which is not the function of the Court. The Court also held that even if the plaintiff did have standing, he failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not confer any actionable right on any individual voter, instead, it directs state legislatures to determine the manner in which electors for the offices of President and Vice President shall be appointed and provides the manner in which those electors shall perform their duties. With respect to the plaintiff's equal protections right claim, the Court found that the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party do not exercise any power conferred or delegated by the state of Florida, rather they are private actors. Finally, the Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly recognized that national political parties have a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct their own internal affairs, including the enforcement of delegate selection rules and the decision as to which state delegates it will recognize, under the First Amendment’s right to freedom of association, and that associational right generally prevails over any countervailing state interest or the interest of any individual voter. 

On October 10, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (docket no. 07-14816). On March 21, 2008, the 11th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for lack of standing. However, the 11th Circuit held that such dismissal should have been without prejudice. The 11th Circuit held that the plaintiff lacked standing because he never alleged that he actually voted, nor even so much suggested that he intended to vote in the Florida Democratic Primary. to the contrary, he simply alleged that his rights "may or may not" have been violated. However, a dismissal for lack of standing, as the case here, the dismissal is necessarily without prejudice. On April 8, 2008, the district court amended its order dated October 5, 2007 to reflect that the plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 

The case is now closed.