Case: Bailey v. Trump

This case involved allegations that the President of the United States and the Republican National Committee collaborated and used the U.S. Postal Service to deceptively and fraudulently interfere with a voter's First Amendment rights as well as illegally solicit funds for political purposes.

A Kentucky resident filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on September 2, 2020. Defendants included President Trump and the acting chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. Plaintiff filed as a pro se litigant. Plaintiff cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342 and 1345, 39 U.S.C. §3001. Plaintiff also cited to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically 52 U.S.C. §§10101(d) and 10307. The case was assigned to Judge Karen K. Caldwell. 

Plaintiff stated that he received an envelope addressed from "Donald J. Trump President of the United States Voter Identification Division" with the following inside: (1) a letter from Donald Trump titled "Party Affiliation Voter Card" ("PAVC"); (2) a document titled "Republican Party Voter Affiliation Tracking Form" ("PVAF"); (3) a letter titled "Donald J. Trump President of the United States"; and (4) a return envelope addressed to P51 Republican National Committee c/o President Donald Trump." 

Plaintiff had four key allegations. First, defendants conspired to illegally obtain campaign contributions from him. Plaintiff argued that the defendants violated federal law in scheming to obtain money by sending fraudulent documents. Plaintiff cited to other instances where the defendants allegedly sent fraudulent state absentee request forms and U.S. consensus forms for their own benefit. Second, defendants conspired to illegally obtain information not provided in the official voter registration card from him. Plaintiff asserted that they violated state law by using his voter registration information to deprive him of his rights to an honest election. Third, they illegally interfered with his right to vote for a candidate of his own choice through intimidation. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants attempted to use fear tactics and intimidation to interfere with his right to vote for the candidates of his choosing. Plaintiff argued that the official looking documents made it appear as if his voting record was being tracked and did not include disclaimers on the legal status of the documents. Plaintiff, an employee of a non-profit, stated that he feared the defendants would retaliate against him or his employer if he did not vote for a Republican candidate and did not fund their campaigns. Fourth, defendants illegally used the U.S. mail to perpetrate all of the forementioned. Plaintiff asserted that the defendants broke federal law by sending the fraudulent documents through U.S. Mail and having a fictitious use of government agency. Plaintiff sought to have an injunction. Plaintiff demanded that the defendants expunge all his voting and other personal information in their possession, cease and desist tracking his party affiliation and voting information, reveal all information they have on him in their possession, and refrain from retaliatory acts for the action. 

The Court entered judgement on October 22, 2020. Plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failing to set forth a viable basis for relief under the cited federal and state law. Plaintiff's federal law claims were dismissed, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The Court stated that the First Amendment's right to vote claims were dismissed for Congress to better address. For the others, the Court stated that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert violations under 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1342 and 1345, which only allowed federal prosecutors and the U.S. Attorney General to bring a claim against mail fraud. 39 U.S.C. §3001 related to the Postal Service gave no viable claim as it did not provide a private right of action. For the Voting Rights Act of 1965 claims, the Court stated that one of the sections cited, 52 U.S.C. §§10101(d), was not prescriptive. The Court liberally construed the plaintiff's reference to it as one of the substantive anti-discrimination provisions in 52 U.S.C. §§10101(a) and 10101(b), which prohibited interference with the right to vote based upon color, race, or previous condition of servitude as well as intimidation or coercion to interfere with another person's right to vote. Similarly to 52 U.S.C. §10307, the plaintiff had to have made a clear allegation that the defendants had the specific intent to intimidate recipients of the mailing in relation to the right to vote. Since there was no factual basis for intimidation, the Court dismissed the corresponding claims. As for the state law claim, the Court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction since the federal claims had all been dismissed.  

This case is now closed.